Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
Ecological Condition of Streams in the Coast Range Ecoregion
of Oregon and Washington
Lillian G. Herger and Gretchen Hayslip
2000
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Publication Number: EPA 910-R-00-002
Suggested Citation:
Herger, L.G. and G. Hayslip. 2000. Ecological condition of streams in the Coast Range
ecoregion of Oregon and Washington. EPA-910-R-00-002. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington.
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
Table of Contents
List of Tables ii
List of Figures Hi
List of Appendices iv
Executive Summary v
Acronyms and Abbreviations ix
I. Introduction 1
I. A. Conceptual Framework 1
IB. Regional EMAP (R-EMAP) Purpose 2
II. Coast Range R-EMAP Project -Overview 3
III. Ecoregion Description 3
IV. Study Design and Methods 5
IV. A. Site selection/sampling 5
IV. B. Field and Lab Methods 6
V. Data Analysis and Interpretative Methods 7
VI. Description of Indicators 9
VI. A. General Stream Resources 9
VI. B. Chemical Characteristics 9
VI. C. Physical Habitat Description 13
VI. D. Fish and Amphibian Resources 29
VI. E. Benthic invertebrates 35
VII. Relations Between Indicators and Stressors 38
VIII. Conclusions 40
IX. References 41
X. Glossary 47
XI. Appendices 51
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
List of Tables
Table 1. Extent of sampling by stream order 9
Table 2. Summary of chemical indicators 10
Table 3. Table of standards for freshwater (Washington State 1992, ODEQ 1998) 11
Table 4. Percent of streams dominated by 4 major substrate sizes 16
Table 5. Mean disturbance index value for all, 1st, 2nd and 3rd order streams for five
disturbance categories 24
Table 6. Definition of the five LWD size classes based on piece length and diameter 24
Table 7. Mean LWD quantity (pieces per 100m) by size class in all, 1st, 2nd and 3rd
order streams 26
Table 8. Frequency of occurrence of vertebrates 30
Table 9. Description of benthic macroinvertebrate indicator 36
Table 10. Summary statistics for seven macroinvertebrate metrics, Coast Range
ecoregion, 1994-1995 37
Table 11. Examples of expected functional feeding-group ratios for scrapers and shredders 37
Table 12. Possible combinations of stressor and indicator relationships 39
11
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
List of Figures
Figure 1. Percent of the total stream km within each of six stream resource categories 5
Figure 2. Sample cumulative distribution function with 90th percentile confidence intervals 8
Figure 3. Relation of percent slope to basin area and stream order 14
Figure 4. Relation of mean thalweg depth to mean wetted width by stream order 15
Figure 5. Percent of stream km within each geomorphic channel type 15
Figure 6. Percent of streams within each stream order category dominated by three substrate
classes 17
Figure 7. Summary of substrate size by stream order expressed as geometric mean (loglO) 17
Figure 8. Cumulative distribution function of overall riparian coverage 18
Figure 9. Cumulative distribution function of coniferous riparian canopy presence 19
Figure 10. Cumulative distribution function of deciduous riparain canopy presence 19
Figure 11. Cumulative distribution function of mixed tree canopy presence 20
Figure 12. Cumulative distribution function of bank shade 20
Figure 13. Cumulative distribution function of mid-channel canopy shade 21
Figure 14. Relation of mid-channel shade to stream width 21
Figure 15. Histogram of mean bank and mid-channel riparian shade by stream order 22
Figure 16. Cumulative distribution function of riparian disturbance (all types) 23
Figure 17. Percent of overall riparian disturbance attributed to each of the major disturbance
categories 23
Figure 18. Cumulative distribution function of LWD pieces (diameter > 10cm) 25
Figure 19. Cumulative distribution function of medium to very large sized LWD 26
Figure 20. Percent of stream length within each of the four habitat types 27
Figure 21. Comparison of mean percent of stream length within each of three water type
categories by stream order 27
Figure 22. Box plot of percent pool by stream order 28
Figure 23. Box plot of maximum pool depth by stream order 28
Figure 24. Box plot of natural fish cover by stream order 29
Figure 25. Histogram of vertebrate family occurrence 31
Figure 26. Histogram offish species occurrence 31
Figure 27. Histogram of amphibian species occurrence 32
Figure 28. Percent of vertebrate species within each temperature guild 33
Figure 29. Percent of vertebrate species within each sensitivity guild 34
Figure 30. Percent of vertebrate species within each habitat guild 34
Figure 31. Percent of vertebrate species within each trophic guild 35
Figure 32. Cumulative distribution function of total invertebrate taxa richness 37
Figure 33. Cumulative distribution function of EPT taxa richness 38
in
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
List of Appendices
Appendix 1. List of map sites with associated stream identification number 52
Appendix 2. Summary statistics for 11 water chemistry indicators collected from Coast Range
ecoregion REMAP sites 53
Appendix 3. Summary statistics for physical habitat metrics based on samples collected from
Coast Range ecoregion REMAP sites 54
Appendix 4. List offish and amphibian species identified during 1994-1995 field sampling of
Coast Range ecoregion REMAP sites 56
Appendix 5. Species characteristics classification for freshwater fish species identified at Coast
Range ecoregion REMAP sites 57
Appendix 6. Species characteristics classification for amphibian species identified during 1994-
1995 field sampling of Coast Range ecoregion REMAP sites 59
Appendix 7. Summary statistics for vertebrate metrics based on samples collected from coastal
ecoregion sites 60
Appendix 8. Summary statistics for seven macroinvertebrate indicators based on samples
collected from riffles of Coast Range ecoregion REMAP sites 62
Appendix 9. R values of significant correlations (P<0.05) between ecological indicators and
stressor indicators of Coast Range ecoregion REMAP sites 63
IV
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
Executive Summary
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) was initiated by EPA to
estimate the current status and trends of the nation's ecological resources and to examine
associations between ecological condition and natural and anthropogenic influences. The long-
term goal of EMAP is to develop methods and procedures for measuring environmental
resources with the purpose of determining condition relative to a set of environmental or
ecological values. Two major features of EMAP are the use of probability-based sample site
selection and the use of ecological indicators.
The EMAP surveys locate sample reaches with a randomized, systematic design (Stevens and
Olsen 1999) that yields a regional representative set of sample sites. This design allows one to
make statistically valid interpolations from the sample data to the entire length of stream in a
study area. Within each randomly selected sample site, field data are collected from a stream
reach, 40 wetted channel widths long (minimum length of 150m). Ecological indicators are
objective, well-defined, and quantifiable surrogates for environmental values. These indicators
are of four main types: water chemistry, physical habitat, vertebrates (fish and amphibians)
community, and macroinvertebrate community data.
The EMAP approach is applicable to projects of smaller geographic scale and time frames.
These regional EMAP (R-EMAP) projects are conducted through partnerships between EPA's
Office of Research and Development (ORD), EPA regions, states, and tribes. Co-operators on
the Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP project were Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
(ODEQ) and Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). These agencies conducted the
field sampling for the project and have generated reports on specific sets of indicators for their
respective states.
The Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP project focuses on wadeable (1st through 3rd order)
streams in the Coast Range ecoregion within EPA Region 10 (Oregon and Washington). The
Coast Range ecoregion includes the Pacific coast mountain range and coastal valleys and
terraces. The combination of maritime weather system and high local topographic relief results
in large differences in local precipitation, which ranges from 55-125 inches average annual
rainfall. The Coast Range ecoregion was once densely forested, but timber harvest has occurred
extensively throughout the coastal mountains and is an ongoing industry in the ecoregion. Dairy
cattle operations, including forage/grain cultivation and feedlots, are concentrated in larger
valleys and along the coast. Human development is concentrated on land bordering water,
particularly ocean bays.
EPA Region 10 analyzed data collected from 104 sample sites within the Coast Range ecoregion
of Washington and Oregon. The purposes of this report are: 1) describe the ecological condition
of wadeable, 1st through 3rd order streams of the Coast Range Ecoregion, 2) examine the
relationship between the indicators of ecological condition of these streams and indicators of
ecological stressors, and 3) provide the states of Washington and Oregon with information that
can assist in the development of biological criteria using fish, amphibian, and macroinvertebrate
assemblage information.
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
The fish and aquatic vertebrate assemblage present in a given reach can provide an indication of
the stream and riparian quality. Extensive life history information is available for many species,
and because many of these species are high order consumers, they often reflect the responses of
the entire trophic structure to environmental stress. Also, fish provide a more publicly
understandable indicator of environmental degradation. Fish generally have long life histories
and integrate pollution effects over longer time periods and large spatial scales. In the Coast
Range ecoregion, 95% of the 1st - 3rd order streams, representing an estimated 23,020 km of
streams, held vertebrates (fish and/or amphibians) and 78% held fish. Streams without fish were
mostly 1st order streams (only 1.2% of this length is 2nd order). This is an expected result as
these smaller, and often steeper, streams are the upward limit offish distribution. A total of 36
different species were sampled, representing 10 fish families (24 species) and eight amphibian
families (12 species).
Salmonids were the most broadly distributed vertebrate family in the region, followed by
sculpins. Dicamptodontids (Cope's and Pacific giant salamanders) were the most common
amphibian family. Coastal cutthroat trout were the most broadly distributed vertebrate species.
Although cutthroat trout inhabit the greatest stream length, the abundance of other salmonids was
higher where they co-occurred with cutthroat trout. Both coho salmon and steelhead had
significantly higher abundance compared to cutthroat trout in streams where cutthroat trout were
sympatric.
Aquatic macroinvertebrates play important functional roles in lotic ecosystems and are good
indicators of stream quality. They represent a fundamental link in the food web between organic
matter resources (e.g., leaf litter, periphyton, detritus) and fishes. Within biogeographical
regions, aquatic macroinvertebrate assemblages respond in predictable ways to changes in stream
environmental indicators. The number of macroinvertebrate taxa present in the Coast Range
indicates the overall condition of streams. The total number of taxa ranges from 5 to 60 species
in the Coast Range ecoregion. In an assessment of Oregon Coast Range streams, Canale (1999)
found that streams with less than 30 taxa were indicative of impaired stream conditions based on
analyses developed from Oregon reference sites. In this study, we found approximately 30% of
stream km had less than 30 taxa.
Stream physical habitat structure includes all those structural attributes that influence or sustain
organisms within the stream. Habitat assessments generally provide a critical understanding of
the stream's ecological function. Some common physical habitat attributes are stream size,
channel gradient, channel substrate, habitat complexity, and riparian vegetation. Of the physical
habitat indicators analyzed, the percent sand and fine sediment was most often correlated to
biotic indicators, with an inverse relation to benthic invertebrate species and sensitive and
coldwater vertebrate species. Sand and fine sediment was the common substrate size (40% of
stream km had sand/fine as the dominant substrate size fraction) in the ecoregion. Although fine
sized sediment occurs naturally in the Coast Range due to the geology, human disturbance can
still influence its quantity. The correlation of agriculture and road type disturbance to the percent
of fine sediment suggests these riparian indicators may be sensitive to detecting human
disturbance beyond background (natural occurrence).
Physiochemical water quality characteristics affect the ability of species to persist in a given lotic
habitat. Water quality data are collected to determine the acid-base status, trophic condition
(nutrient enrichment), and the presence of chemical stressors. Physical data collected included
light penetration (e.g., turbidity, suspended solids), temperature and ionic strength (e.g.,
vi
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
conductivity). Chemical data collected included concentrations of dissolved gases, major cations,
anions, and nutrients. Temperature and dissolved oxygen (DO) were frequently correlated with
physical and biotic indicators. Stream temperature was generally inversely correlated with biotic
indicators, however the streams were generally cold. For vertebrates, the direction of the
correlation for DO was typically opposite that of temperature.
The Coast Range R-EMAP project was the first in a series of partnerships between EPA Region
10, EPA ORD, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, and Washington Department of
Ecology. Other projects include assessments of the upper Deschutes and upper Chehalis basins
and the Western Cascades ecoregion. Also, this project laid the foundation for upcoming
Western EMAP project that will begin in 2000 and cover the entire western United States.
Acknowledgments
This study would not be possible without the field efforts of Oregon Department of Environment
Quality and Washington Department of Ecology. We especially thank Rick Hafele and Mike
Mulvey (ODEQ) and Glenn Merritt (Ecology). EPA's Office of Research and Development in
Corvallis, Oregon, provided a great deal of support in the preparation of this report. We thank
Alan Herlihy, Bob Hughes (Dynamac), Phil Kaufmann, for sharing their ideas and for critiquing
our approach. Marlys Cappaert (Dynamac) helped us with database management. Finally, we
thank EPA Region 10 personnel Pat Cirone, Lorraine Edmond, Geoff Poole, and Kristen Ryding
for their suggestions and critical reviews.
VI1
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
Vlll
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
Acronyms and Abbreviations
CDF cumulative distribution function
DLG digital line graphs
RF3 River File, Version 3
Ecology Washington Department of Ecology
DO Dissolved oxygen
DOC Dissolved organic carbon
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EMAP Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
HUC Hydrologic Unit Code
LWD Large woody debris
NADP National Atmospheric Deposition Program
ODEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
ORD EPA's Office of Research and Development
TP Total phosphorus
QA/QC Quality assurance and quality control
R-EMAP Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
IX
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
Ecological Condition of Streams in the Coast Range Ecoregion
of Oregon and Washington
I. Introduction
This document will summarize data collected in the Coast Range ecoregion of Oregon and
Washington. The project has been a cooperative effort between the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Research and Development (ORD), EPA Region 10,
Washington Department of Ecology, and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
I. A. Conceptual Framework
EMAP (Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program) was initiated by EPA to estimate
the current status and trends of the nation's ecological resources and examine associations
between ecological condition and natural and anthropogenic influences. The surface water
component of EMAP is based on the premise that the condition of stream biota can be addressed
by examining biological and ecological indicators of stress. The long-term goal of EMAP is to
develop ecological methods and procedures that permit the measurement of environmental
resources to determine if they are in an acceptable or unacceptable condition relative to a set of
environmental or ecological values. Two major features of EMAP are the use of ecological
indicators and probability-based selection of sample sites.
I. A.I. Overview of EMAP Indicators
The following is a partial list of the indicators used in EMAP to detect stress in stream
ecosystems.
Indicator
Rationale
Water chemistry
Water chemistry affects stream biota. Numeric standards are available
from which to evaluate some water quality parameters.
Watershed condition
Disturbances related to land use affect stream biota and water quality.
These indicators function at the watershed scale.
Instream physical
habitat and riparian
condition
Instream and riparian alterations affect stream biota and water quality.
Physical habitat in streams includes all those physical attributes that
influence organisms within the stream.
Benthic
macroinvertebrate
assemblage
Benthic assemblages reflect overall biological integrity of the stream and
monitoring these assemblages is useful in assessing the current status of
the water body as well as long-term changes (Plafkin et al. 1989).
Because benthic assemblages respond to an array of stressors in different
ways, it is often possible to determine the type of stress that has affected
a assemblage (Klemm et al. 1990).
Vertebrate
assemblages
Vertebrates are a meaningful indicator of ecological integrity, especially
to the public. Fish and amphibians occupy the upper levels of the aquatic
food web and are both directly and indirectly affected by chemical and
physical changes in their environment. Water quality and habitat
conditions that negatively affect lower levels of the food web will affect
the abundance, species composition, and condition of a given vertebral
assemblage (Karr et al. 1986).
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
I. A. 2. Overview of EMAP Sample Design
Monitoring, assessments, and control efforts are typically based on subjectively selected
localized stream reaches. Peterson et al. (1998; 1999) compared subjectively selected localized
lake data with probability-based sample selection and showed the results for the same area to be
substantially different. The primary reason for these differences was lack of regional sample
representativeness of subjectively selected sites. Stream studies have been plagued by the same
problem. A more objective approach is needed to assess stream quality on a regional scale.
EMAP uses a statistical sampling design that views streams as a continuous resource. This
allows for answering questions in terms of length of the stream resource in various conditions
(Herlihy et al., In Press) and avoids problems related to using discrete (i.e. site specific) stream
data. Sample sites are randomly selected from a systematic grid based on 1:100,000 scale
landscape maps overlaid (USGS' digital line graphs) with hydrography (EPA's 'river file 3'
data). The EMAP systematic grid provides uniform spatial coverage, making it possible to select
stream sample locations in proportion to their occurrence (Overton et al. 1990). This design
allows one to make statistically valid interpolations from the sample data to the entire length of
stream in a study area. Stream order, ecoregion, or other abiotic factors may be used to classified
sample selection in order to tailor the sample population to the landscape of question.
LA. 3. EMAP Objectives
EMAP has three primary objectives (Thornton et al. 1994):
1. Estimate the current status, trends and changes in selected indicators of the condition of the
ecological resources with known confidence.
2. Estimate the geographical coverage and extent of the nation's ecological resources with
known confidence.
3. Seek associations among indicators of ecological resource condition and natural and
anthropogenic indicators of stress.
I.B. Regional EMAP (R-EMAP) Purpose
Using EMAP's indicator concepts and statistical design, Regional EMAP (R-EMAP) applies the
EMAP approach to projects of smaller geographic scale and time frames. R-EMAP is conducted
through partnerships between ORD, EPA Regions, States, tribes and others. The objectives of
R-EMAP are to:
1. Evaluate and improve EMAP concepts for state and local use.
2. Assess the applicability of EMAP indicators at differing spatial scales.
3. Demonstrate the utility of EMAP for resolving issues of importance to EPA Regions and to
States.
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
II. Coast Range R-EMAP Project Overview
The Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP project focuses on wadeable (1st through 3rd order)
streams in the Coast Range Ecoregion within EPA Region 10. Co-operators on this project were
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) and Washington Department of Ecology
(Ecology). These agencies conducted the field sampling for the project and have generated
reports on specific sets of indicators for their respective States. Within the framework of EMAP
and R-EMAP this project focuses on synthesizing the data from both states with the following
three objectives:
1. Describe the ecological condition of wadeable, 1st through 3rd order streams of the
Coast Range Ecoregion.
2. Examine the relationship between the indicators of ecological condition of these
streams and indicators of ecological stress.
This document presents the results from the Coast Range Ecoregion R-EMAP project. It will
describe the range in condition of each of the physical, chemical and biological indicators
measured. The relationship between indicators and stressors will be examined with emphasis on
the relation of human-caused riparian disturbance to indicators.
III. Ecoregion Description
The Coast Range ecoregion includes the Pacific coast mountain range and coastal valleys and
terraces (Map l)(Omernik 1987). Local relief is between 1,500 and 2,000 feet, with mountains
generally below 4,000 feet. The combination of maritime weather system and high local
topographic relief results in large differences in local precipitation, which ranges from 55-125
inches average annual rainfall. The Coast Range ecoregion was once densely forested, but timber
harvest has occurred extensively throughout the coastal mountains and is an ongoing industry in
the ecoregion. Dairy cattle operations, including forage/grain cultivation and feedlots, are
concentrated in larger valleys and along the coast. Human development is concentrated on land
bordering water, particularly ocean bays.
The Coast Range Ecoregion contains many unique terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems ranging
from nearly pristine to areas with extensive timber harvest, agriculture, or urbanization. In the
north, the Coast Range Ecoregion encompasses the lower elevation portions of the Olympic
National Park. This area includes over 60 miles of undeveloped Pacific coast, (the largest
section of wilderness coast in the lower 48 states) and the largest remaining old growth and
temperate rain forests in the Pacific Northwest. The middle portion of the ecoregion includes
areas with large dairy operations (Tillamook Bay) and coastal tourism development (northern
Oregon coast). The southern extent of the ecoregion includes the dune areas of the southern
Oregon coast (which is a diverse landscape of unique native plants species, wetlands and old-
growth Sitka spruce forests) as well as large wilderness areas.
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
- ~.ff.
-/.-"
.- r Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP
Sit* Map
:' /Y .HJ^ »
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
Assessments by state agencies have established that inability of some rivers and streams in the
ecoregion to support beneficial uses results from altered sediment and flow regimes, degraded
physical habitat and elevated temperature, fecal coliform, and nutrient levels (Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality 1990; Washington Department of Ecology 1990). Types
of land management that affect beneficial uses are livestock grazing, agriculture, forestry and
urbanization.
IV. Study Design and Methods
IV. A. Site selection/sampling
Study sites were selected from a sample population of all mapped (1:100,000 scale) 1st through
3rd order streams in the Coast Range ecoregion, using EMAP-Surf ace Water protocols (Herlihy
et. al., In Press). Stream order was used to define the initial sample population because it was a
convenient and fairly reliable method for insuring that only wadeable streams would be included.
A systematic random sample of this population allowed for an unbiased estimate of condition in
the population. As 1st order streams were the vast majority of the stream lengths and a sufficient
sample size of higher order (2nd and 3rd order) streams was needed, a variable selection
probability was used that gave a higher probability of selection to higher stream orders. The end
result was an equal sample size for the three stream orders. This variable selection probability
by stream orders is accounted for when making the regional estimates by using site weighting
factors. Each site was assigned a weight based on the occurrence of its type in the stream
database. First order streams had a larger weighting factor than 2nd or 3rd order streams.
Therefore, there was not a one to one relation of sample sites to the stream miles each site
represents.
Of the total sites selected, 30% were deleted from the actual sampling site population based on
reconnaissance findings. Reasons for deletion were: inaccessibility, denial of access, no channel
present, non-wadeable, or dry channel (Figure 1). A total of 104 sites were sampled at least once
within the ecoregion, 47 in Washington and 57 in Oregon. The elevation of sampled sites ranged
from 5m to 670m. Several sites occurred outside of the current ecoregion boundary because the
sites were selected in 1994 from the Coast Range ecoregion area defined in Omernik 1987.
Since that time, ecoregion boundaries were refined. The current Coast Range ecoregion
boundary and sample site locations are shown on Map 1 and site codes are in Appendix 1.
Target
>
o Inaccessible/No Time
O)
£ No Access Permission
o
E No Channel/Slough
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
ODEQ and Ecology collected data during summer/fall 1994 and 1995. Within each sample
segment, field measurements were made on the randomly selected stream reach, 40 wetted
channel widths long (minimum length of 150m). Water chemistry, physical habitat, vertebrates
(fish and amphibians), and macroinvertebrate data were collected at each site. The sampling
season was from July to October of each year, corresponding with the low flow period. A
minimum of 10% of the sites was re-sampled annually, to evaluate index period variability.
IV. B. Field and Lab Methods
All data were collected with Hayslip et al. 1994 field methods which are modified from Klem
and Lazorchak (1994) (Updated version of these methods are available in Lazorchak et al. 1998).
Refer to this document for methods as only minimal explanation is provided here. There were
minor differences in the types of data collected between the two states. Only those data common
to both states and collected in the same way are included in this report. Landscape data common
to both states were not available.
IV.B. 1.Water chemistry
Oregon DEQ and Washington Ecology used comparable sampling/analysis protocols and
QA/QC procedures for this project. Following methods in Hayslip et al. (1994), data for 11
water quality parameters were collected at all sites. Measurements of temperature, pH, and
conductivity, were collected in situ. Water samples were analyzed for total alkalinity, chloride,
dissolved organic carbon (DOC), ammonium, nitrate, total phosphorous (TP), and sulfate.
Dissolved oxygen (DO) was measured with a meter in Washington and with Winkler titration in
Oregon.
IV.B. 2.Phvsical Habitat
Physical habitat data were collected with a slightly modified version of the procedures described
by Kaufmann and Robison (1998) for the U.S. EPA's EMAP surveys. The physical habitat
metrics used are described in Kaufmann et al. (1999). The following three types of habitat
variables were measured or estimated:
continuous parameters: Thalweg profile (a longitudinal survey of depth), and presence/absence
of fine sediments were collected at either 100 or 150 equally spaced points along the stream
reach. A subjective determination of the geomorphic channel type (e.g. riffle, glide, pool) was
made at each point. Crews also tallied large woody debris along the reach.
transect parameters: Measures/observations of channel wetted width, depth, substrate size,
canopy closure, and fish cover taken at eleven evenly spaced transects in each reach. Gradient
measurements and compass bearing between each of the 11 stations are collected to calculate
reach gradient and channel sinuosity. This category also includes measures and/or visual
estimates of riparian vegetation structure, human disturbance, and bank angle, incision and
undercut.
reach parameters: Channel morphology class for the entire reach was determined (Montgomery
and Buffmgton 1993) and instantaneous discharge was measured at one optimally chosen
cross-section.
IV.B. 3. Vertebrates
The objectives of the vertebrate assemblage assessment were to 1) collect all except the most
rare species in the assemblage and 2) collect data for estimates of relative abundance of species
in the assemblage. Fish were sampled with one-pass electro-fishing in all portions of the sample
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
reach. Fish were identified, counted, and measured and voucher specimens were collected.
Amphibians that were captured were identified and counted only. Although these methods were
not used to estimate absolute abundance, standardized collection techniques were important for
consistent measures of proportionate abundance of species.
IV.B. 4. Benthic invertebrates
At each of 11 transects, macroinvertebrates were collected at varying points along each transect
(including margins) with a D-frame kick net (500 |j,m mesh). Site selection employed a
systematic spatial sampling design that minimized bias in positioning the sampling stations. The
samples were composited according to habitat type: depositional (pool) and erosional (riffle). In
this analysis, we will only be presenting the results of the riffle samples. For each sample, 300
organisms were identified to the finest practical taxonomic level.
V. Data Analysis and Interpretative Methods
Data quality objectives and quality assurance procedures followed those outlined in Chaloud and
Peck (1994), Merritt (1994) and Hayslip (1993). EPA contractor Dan Palmiter entered and
compiled the raw data. EPA ORD office in Corvallis, OR calculated most metrics. Summary
statistics and data analyses were generated with Statistica software (Statsoft Inc. 1995) and S-
PLUS (Mathsoft 1998). Data from repeat visits to these sample sites will be used in future
analyses to test for between-year and within-year variability.
There is some variability in the number of samples for various indicators. For example, chloride
was measured at 84 of tie 104 sites. For these indicators, the cumulative weight of the sites
sampled is used to calculate the percentage of stream for each particular indicator. For chloride,
the percent stream kilometers of a particular chloride level are reported based on 1he weighted
cumulative stream kilometers of those 84 sample sites rather than the entire 23245 km of the
entire sample. From here on, the valid stream km for a particular indicator will simple be
referred to as 'stream km'.
The primary method for evaluating indicators was cumulative distribution frequencies (CDFs).
CDFs present the complete data population variation and allow one to estimate the proportion of
the population above or below a particular value (Larsen and Christie 1993). The advantage of
this method is that the complete data for the population is presented with uncertainty estimates.
Because value judgements are not imposed, different criteria for evaluating the data can be used
(Larsen and Christie 1993). Details of the statistical foundation for EMAP methods are in Diaz-
Ramos etal. (1996).
Confidence intervals are not presented graphically for each of the indicator estimates. Rather,
the range of confidence intervals and other summary statistics are in appendices of summary
statistics for each of the indicator categories (water chemistry, physical habitat, vertebrates, and
benthic invertebrates. Generally, confidence intervals were close to the sample values as
illustrated by this CDF example of mid-channel canopy density (Figure 2).
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
1994 -1395 OFVWA Coaa Range RBdAP Estimaes
1.0
"Lower 90% Bound
"Estimate
Upper 9C% Bound
O 0.8-
20
30 40 50 60 70 80
Mid Channel Canopy Density (%)
90 100
,th
Figure 2. Sample cumulative distribution function with 90 percentile confidence intervals
Beyond describing the ecological condition based on the Coast Range data, it is possible to apply
an interpretation of the acceptable biological status for management application. The nominal
condition (not degraded by human influence) is the basis for making these comparisons and for
detecting impairment. There are several methods for defining nominal condition that may be
used including:
Reference conditions are developed from the analysis of carefully selected sites that represent the
best attainable watershed condition, habitat structure, water quality and biological parameters
(Hughes 1995). The idea being that these 'best sites' approximate pre-settlement conditions.
Sample sites can then be compared to this benchmark to describe there relative condition. The
reference condition can also be developed from historical data, however historical data,
especially for biological assemblages is almost non-existent for the entire Coast Range
Ecoregion. The characteristics of appropriate reference sites will vary among ecoregions and for
different waterbody types. Currently, a reference condition has not been defined for the entire
Coast Range Ecoregion of Oregon and Washington
Quantitative Models: By plotting biological variables against human disturbance variables or
natural variables, one can predict reference condition through curve fitting (Hughes 1995).
Models of this type have not been developed for the Coast Range ecoregion. Then site data can
be compared to this curve to determine how far it deviates for the nominal condition.
Cumulative Distribution Functions (CDFs) is a method of plotting the environmental data from a
population of sites in order to describe the characteristics of the population. With adequate
sample size it is possible to define sub populations based on the gradient of condition. The sites
at the low end of the range for a given indicator are further from the nominal condition than sites
at the high range. For example sites that have dissolved oxygen measures <8mg/l may be
considered to be below the nominal condition. This method requires a large enough data set to
represent the population in question (in this study, 1st through 3rd order streams of the Coast
Range Ecoregion).
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
For this descriptive analysis of the condition of coast range streams, we will rely on analysis of
the CDF's and on comparing these data to other studies and standards relevant to the coast range
ecoregion.
VI. Description of Indicators
VI. A. General Stream Resources
An analysis of USGS digital format maps (DLG) and EPA Reach Files, Version 3 (RF3) yielded
33,270 km of 1-3 order stream in the Coast Range ecoregion. Drawing random samples from
this population resulted in the characterization of the total stream km in the ecoregion as shown
in Figure 1. Target stream sites (useable sample sites) were drawn (total of 104 sites) from 70%
of the stream length therefore the data analysis will be useful for applying inferences to 23,245
km of the 38,700 km of the ecoregion. Of these 104 'target' sample sites 57 were in Oregon
representing 14830 km of stream, and 47 were in Washington representing the remaining 8420
km of stream length. The other 30% of the sites could not be sampled due to reasons presented
in Figure 1.
Sample selection was classified by stream order, with the number of samples relatively equally
distributed between the three stream orders. Each 1st order sample represents a proportionately
large number of stream miles due to the far larger 1st order stream length in the ecoregion (Table
1).
Table 1. Extent of sampling by stream order, Coast Range ecoregion 1994-95.
Order
1st
rynd
3m
Total:
#of
samples
35
31
38
104
km stream
length
16323
3781
3141
23245
% total stream
length
70
16
14
~
VI. B. Chemical Characteristics
Data for 11 water quality variables were collected from over 100 sites (for most indicators). The
rationale for the selection of each indicator is summarized in Table 2. Summary statistics for all
water chemistry indicators are in Appendix 2. Results were compared to current water quality
standards of Oregon and Washington (Table 3). Often, water chemistry measurements varied
temporally. For example, nutrient levels varied with stream flow and pH varied diurnally due to
solar radiation and photosynthetic activity. Temperature and DO were especially temporally
variable. Because sites were not continuously sampled and timing of sampling was not intended
to capture the peak concentration of chemical indicators, data interpretation reflects a single view
in time.
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
Table 2. Summary of chemical indicators.
Indicator/units
Stream
Temperature
Dissolved
Oxygen (DO)
pH
Alkalinity
Conductivity
Total
phosphorous
(TP)
Inorganic
nitrogen
(Nitrate NO3"
and Ammonium
NH4+)
Chloride (Cl')
Rationale
Biological activity
Growth and survival of species
Growth and survival offish,
Sustain sensitive benthic invertebrates
Organic material processing
Fish production
Benthic invertebrate survival
Indicates a waterbody's ability to
neutralize pH
Indicator of dissolved ions.
Stimulates primary production.
Usually the limiting nutrient in
freshwater aquatic systems. Delivery
to lentic systems can result in nutrient
enrichment that impairs water quality,
recreational uses. Toxicity to fish is
not typically a problem.
Nitrogen (NO3"N, NH4+ -N) are
important nutrients for aquatic plants.
But, ionic forms of nitrogen,( nitrate
and ammonium) can limit growth.
Nitrate is essentially non-toxic to
aquatic biota (Rand and Petrocelli
1985), yet accumulations of nitrogen
can result in nutrient enrichment that
can impair beneficial uses.
Not generally an environmental
concern, may be good surrogate for
general human disturbance in
watersheds (Herlihy et al. 1998)
Responses related to
management activities
Riparian shade reduction
Altered stream morphology
Fine sediment inputs
Organic debris loading (slash and
dairy)
Riparian shade reduction
Point sources (industrial, municipal
waste)
Mining discharge
Organic debris loading (slash)
Agriculture return flow, industrial
inputs, and mining discharge
Increases due high erosion rates,
organic matter inputs from
recreation, septic tanks and
livestock.
Storm water runoff.
Forest harvest disrupts nitrogen
cycling (decreases root uptake and
alters moisture regimes).
Fertilization from agriculture,
livestock waste, and point sources
of sewage disposal.
Industrial output, fertilizer use,
livestock waste, sewage, and use of
road de-icing salts.
10
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
Table 3. Table of standards for freshwater (Washington State 1992, ODEQ 1998).
Indicator
water
temperature
Dissolved
oxygen
PH
Standards for Oregon
< 17.8°C or 12.8° during times of salmon
spawning, incubation and emergence. Based on
seven-day moving average of daily maximum.
>1 Img/L in waters that support salmon spawning
to fry emergence. >8mg/L in cold-water aquatic
resources waters, and >6.5 mg/L in cool-water
aquatic resources waters.
6.5 to 8.5 (general basin standards listed for
several basins within the Coast Range ecoregion)
Standard for
Washington1
<16°C(AA)and<18°(A)
waters
>9.5 mg/L (AA) >8 mg/L
(A)
6.5 to 8. 5 for A and AA
waters
Streams within the Washington portion of the sample data are designated as either Class A or AA which are state
beneficial use classifications (Merritt et al. 1999).
VLB. 1. Water temperature
Because stream temperature is temporally variable, dependent on climatic conditions, a single
measurement is of very limited value in characterizing stream conditions. Therefore, any
conclusions of ecoregion wide summer temperature have limited validity. Temperature ranged
from 7 to 25°C. First and second order streams had lower water temperatures (7 to 18°C) and 3rd
order streams had highest temperatures recorded and greatest variability of temperatures. Using
the Washington State standard as the threshold for low water quality due to warm temperatures,
most streams are considered cold. At the time of sampling, two sites were 18°C or warmer,
representing 1% of the stream length.
VLB. 2. Dissolved oxygen
Dissolved oxygen (DO) content is related to turbulence and temperature (and to a lesser degree
atmospheric pressure). Decreased DO levels are associated with inputs of organic matter, loss of
substrate interstitial spaces due to sedimentation, as well as increased temperature and reduced
stream flow (MacDonald et al. 1991). As with temperature, conclusions must be drawn with
caution, as DO is temporally variable and a single measurement is of questionable value for
characterizing stream condition. In the study sample, DO ranged from 1.1 mg/L to 12.2 mg/L
(mean 8.7 mg/L). The water quality standard of 8mg/L for cold water resources (Oregon) and
Class A waters (Washington) were met in 89% of stream km at the time of sampling. The
highest standard of 11 mg/L was met by 3% of stream km. These streams had relatively low
water temperatures at the time of sampling as 11 mg/L is approximately 100% DO saturation
between 9-11.5 °C at elevations <2000 ft (American Public Health Association 1989). An
estimated 14% of the stream km did not meet the water quality standard of >6.5 mg/L at the time
of sampling.
DO (mg/L)
>6.5
>8
>11
% stream km
86
80
3
11
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
VLB. 3. pH
At atmospheric pCO2, one would expect rain to have pH of 5.6 due to carbonic acid. At the
National Atmospheric Deposition Program's (NADP) Alsea site in western Oregon, rainfall pH
was 5.3 and sulfate was 5-8 |j,eq/L (NADP 2000). These values indicate that little 'acid rain'
falls in the Coast Range. The pH of the REMAP study sites ranged from 5.5 to 8.1 with mean
7.1. The water quality standard of 6.5 to 8.5 was met by 86% of stream km. The remaining 14%
were below (higher acidity) the standard.
VLB. 4. Indicators associated with pH
Alkalinity:
Alkalinity is the capacity of the solutes of water to react with and neutralize acid. Past studies
have found that alkalinity ranges from 0.20 to 0.72 meq/L (200 to 720 |j,eq /L) in rivers of the
Coast Range ecoregion (Welch et al. 1998). EMAP data reflected this finding with mean
alkalinity 569 |ieq/L (range 80 to 1679 |ieq/L). Alkalinity is <800 |ieq/L in 80% of stream km.
Although there is no alkalinity standard because there is no effect on biota, alkalinity it is
important because of the buffering effect on pH. Waters with alkalinity >200 |j,eq/L are
considered not sensitive to acid deposition, while an alkalinity of 50-200 |j,eq/L is a gray area (A.
Herlihy, OSU, Pers. Comm. 2000).
Specific Conductance:
Specific conductance measures the ion concentration of water and can be used as a surrogate for
total dissolved solids. It is useful for detecting water quality impairments from mining and
agriculture. Because aquatic biota are considered to be relatively insensitive to conductivity,
there are no known recommended criteria (MacDonald et al. 1991). Although there are no
standards, high conductance measurements give cause for further attention. As is typical in
coastal streams (Welch et al. 1998), conductance was low with 74% of stream km having
conductance of < 100 nS/cm (96% were <200 |iS/cm).
VLB. 5. Phosphorous
Because of the phosphorous content, Coast Range streams are considered naturally oligotrophic
and sensitive to nutrient inputs (Welch et al. 1998). The significant outcome of nutrient inputs is
increased amounts of algal growth. Both phosphorous and nitrogen limit photosynthesis in
oligotrophic streams, but in the Coast Range ecoregion, phosphorous is typically much more
limited due to characteristic N:P ratios of 20:1 (Welch et al. 1998). Although there are no state
standards, EPA (1986) recommends <50 |j,g/L total phosphorous (TP) for streams that deliver to
lakes. Total phosphorous exceeded 50 |j,g/L in 25% of stream km. Differences based on stream
order were not observed. In streams that do not deliver to lentic systems, a standard of 0.10
mg/L (100|j,g/L) has been suggested (MacKenthun 1973 as mentioned in MacDonald et al.
1991). Only 12% of stream km exceeded 100 ug/L TP.
VLB. 6. Nitrate
Nitrogen was analyzed as nitrite-nitrate (NO2" NO3") in Washington and as nitrate in Oregon.
Due to the very minor occurrence of the nitrite constituent the data of the two states were
combined and referred to as nitrate (A. Herlihy, OSU, Pers. Comm. 1999).
Inorganic nitrogen (nitrate-nitrogen) is the predominant form of nitrogen in lotic systems (Welch
et al. 1998) and is readily assimilated by plants for growth. This trend was demonstrated in the
data as 1st and 2nd order streams had higher mean nitrate (NO 3") concentrations than downstream
12
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
3rd order streams, indicating that nitrogen is taken up by aquatic biota as it is delivered
downstream. There is no national standard for nitrate but concentration of <0.3 mg/L (<300
|j,eq/L) would probably prevent eutrophication (Cline 1973 as mentioned in MacDonald et al.
1991). All of the estimated stream km had <30 |j,eq/L nitrate.
VLB. 7. Chloride
Chloride (Cl") is present generally at low levels in all natural waters (Hem 1985) with a
worldwide mean in rivers estimated as 7.8 mg/L (range 1 to 280,000 mg/L). Chloride does not
usually negatively affect biota and is considered a good tracer because it is involved in relatively
few chemical processes relative to other ions (Feth 1981). Chloride was found to be an indicator
of human disturbance in the Mid-Atlantic region of the U.S. (Herlihy et al. 1998). In the Coast
Range data set, chloride was low (84% of stream km <2 mg/L) in most streams. Coastal waters
can receive significant inputs of chloride due to atmospheric transfer (1-20 mg/L in coastal
rainfall) (Welch et al. 1998). The Alsea National Acid Deposition Project found chloride
concentrations from atmospheric deposition of 1-2 ppm (l-2mg/L). Although chloride as an
indicator of human disturbance is problematic in coastal areas because of sea salt inputs, the fact
that chloride was <2mg/L in most streams supports the notion that human inputs at most sites are
low (mostly from atmospheric sources) (A. Herlihy, EPA, Pers. Comm. 2000).
VLB. 8. Sulfate
Quantities of sulfate (SO42") are usually low in Pacific Coast rivers with reported concentrations
of 10 to 30uM (McClain et al. 1998). Acid deposition is typically low in the western United
States with mean sulfate deposition of 1.2 to 8.2 kg/ha/year (Stolte and Smith 1999, In Review)
and anthropogenic sources of sulfate are currently low in the Coast Range ecoregion (Welch et
al. 1998). As with chloride, there is no standard or suggested value for sulfate in surface waters.
The mean value for the EMAP data was 85.1 |j,eq/L with 80% of stream km having estimated
sulfate concentration of <100 |j,eq/L.
VI. C. Physical Habitat Description
Variations in geology, gradient, and basin size form different types of stream channels. These
channel types vary in how they process inputs of water, sediment and LWD which influences
overall form as well as resilience to natural and human disturbance. In this section, watershed
scale features (stream order, basin size, and gradient) describe the stream in the context of the
overall landscape and provide context for the relationship of other physical habitat features at
smaller spatial scales. Physical stream characteristics (substrate, LWD, habitat units, fish cover)
and riparian characteristics are also presented. When possible, characteristics are related to
stream order. Summary statistics for physical habitat data are in Appendix 3.
VI.C. 1. Watershed scale features
Stream order (Strahler 1957) describes the location of the stream within a watershed. In the
ecoregion, first order streams have a relatively narrow range of watershed area and have the
broadest range of gradient as both lowland tributaries of larger streams and steeper headwater
streams are present in the Coast Range (Figure 3). Third order streams have relatively larger
watershed area and have the smallest range of gradients not exceeding 4%. Second order
streams are intermediate.
13
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
24-
22-
20-
18-
16-
°A
£L n
ffi&4*«cfita D go jan-. q-. nj-. n_
T^A Tfi ^
l
0 1.00
A 2.00
D 3.00
n Q
I I I I I I
500 3000 5500 8000 10500 13000
Basin area (HA)
Q
15500
-
-
-
-
-
-
Figure 3. Relation of percent slope to basin area and stream order.
As with basin area, stream order was related to stream width and depth (Figure 4). First order
streams were narrower and shallower than 3rd order streams and 2nd order were intermediate.
Mean thalweg depth for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd order streams was 16, 37, and 55 cm respectively, with
an overall mean depth of 25 cm estimated for the Coast Range. Mean wetted stream width by
order was 2.3, 5.1, and 11.6 m with an overall mean for the Coast Range of 4m. Stream width
and depth were also correlated (r=0.71).
Most of the channels of the ecoregion have a pool-riffle channel (Montgomery and Buffington
1998) (Figure 5). In this channel type, flow converges and scours on alternating banks resulting
in a laterally oscillating sequence of bars, pools, and riffles. Although the pool-riffle channel
morphology is typical of low gradient, free-flowing alluvial channels, this channel form also
occurred in steeper reaches with large roughness elements (LWD, rock outcrops or riparian trees)
that force flow and accumulate sediment resulting in a pool-riffle sequence. The second most
common channel type is step-pool (17%). These channels have channel spanning roughness
elements (LWD, large sediment sizes) that trap sediment, forming pools below these steps. This
results in an alternating pattern of turbulent flow over steps into pools. This channel type is
associated with steeper gradients; coarse bed material and confined channels (Montgomery and
Buffington 1998). The other types of channel forms, plane bed, cascade and braided, are rare.
14
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
1 1 1 1
140 -
120 -
o 1nn
100
f 80-
D)
0)
5
03
£
ro 40 -
0)
20 -
o -
a
n n n
0 n
A n
A ft n
* a ^ n D DD
1
o 1.00
A 2.00
a 3.00
cu
n* nnnnnn -n
* ^ £>n^ Dga n a
O ^A j^ O D
*O^ Q c^ S^ D
«A**
rf^
I 1 1 I
0 5 10 15
Mean wetted width (m)
1
20
-
-
.
_
-
25
Figure 4. Relation of mean thalweg depth to mean wetted width by stream order.
Step-pool
17%
Braided
2% Cascade
3% Planebed
8%
Pool-riffle
70%
Figure 5. Percent of stream km within each geomorphic channel type.
Summary: the wadeable streams of the Coast Range represent a broad range of basin areas and
gradients. Stream order indicates where a channel lies in relation to the entire channel network
and is often related to channel size and gradient. Characteristics of slope and basin area, as well
as other watershed scale characteristics such as flow, influence channel morphology in turn
influencing habitat forming processes and ultimately the distribution of species. In order to
15
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
assess stream condition it is necessary to acknowledge these relationships, as they can confound
the interpretation of the relationship of human influence to stream condition. For example, a
small low gradient stream may have naturally abundant fine sediment accumulations due to the
lack of stream power combined with the geology of the area. One influence of human
disturbance is to increase fine sediment accumulations yet it is difficult to separate these effects
without estimates of stream power.
VI.C. 2. Substrate
Stream substrate size is influenced by geology, transport capacity, and channel morphological
characteristics that influence sediment processes. The following describes the characteristics of
surface substrate particle size in the ecoregion. Substrate particle size data were collected at five
locations along each of the 11 evenly spaced transects at each sample site. Data were expanded
to reflect the proportion of the stream channel area.
Looking at the ecoregion-wide data, small gravel or finer sized substrate (<16mm diameter)
category was the most common substrate size in the ecoregion averaging 54% of the stream
surface substrate across all stream km. The sand and fines fraction (<2mm diameter) had a mean
of 42% of the stream substrate across all stream km. Coarse substrate (>16mm diameter) was
less common with mean 32% of stream km. Other substrate types (bedrock, hardpan, organics,
etc.) formed a limited portion of the overall substrate.
Within site substrate variability can be characterized with the dominant substrate particle size.
Defining dominance as >50% of the surface substrate in a particular substrate size fraction yields
the following results (Table 4). Overall, relatively common (29%). Bedrock dominated channels
were rare and none of the streams had organic material as the dominant substrate. Note, many
channels did not have a dominant substrate size class.
Table 4. Percent of streams dominated by 4 major substrate classes (>50% of stream substrate).
Values generated from the pebble measurements in sample sites reaches and expanded to percent
of stream km using probability-weighting factors.
Size category
<2mm
2-250mm
250-4000
Other
Description
Sand and fines
Gravel/cobble
Boulder/bedrock
Wood or detritus
Total
% of stream km with dominant particle size
All
38
29
4
0
71
1st order
44
28
0
0
72
2na order
34
27
16
0
77
3rd order
8
41
10
0
59
Differences in dominant substrate size as well as the degree of dominance were found between
stream orders. The fine substrate class dominated first and second order streams to a greater
extent than third order streams, while third order streams were more commonly dominated by the
gravel/cobble substrate size (Table 4, Figure 6). Third order streams had the greatest variety in
substrate sizes within reaches, where substrate categories more rarely expressed dominance.
Also, there was less overall variability in substrate qaantity by category among third order
reaches (lower standard deviation). Lower variability of substrate size in the third order streams
is also reflected in the box plot of geometric mean substrate size by stream order (Figure 7).
16
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
Correlations between measure of overall substrate size (geometric diameter) and measures of
stream size (gradient and basin area) were very weak, possibly because of differences in slope
that were not correlated with stream size.
(A
E
re
2!
+rf
(A
O Fines
Gravel/cobble
D Boulder/bedrock
1st order
2nd order
Stream order
3rd order
Figure 6. Percent of streams within each stream order category dominated by three substrate
classes (dominance defined as >50% stream surface substrate).
Summary statistic of substrate size by stream order,
coast range ecoregion, 1994-95
fS
* 2
&
^
c 1
0
« o
tj
1 -1
O)
3
1
i
'
D
j
|
i
|
i
i
P
i
<
)
0
0
1 M /-\ *r i\/i
Non-Outlier Min
1 1 75%
25%
n Median
o Outliers
1 2 3 * Extremes
Stream
order
Figure 7. Summary of substrate size by stream order expressed as geometric mean (log 10).
17
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
VI.C. 3. Riparian vegetation
Riparian vegetation is important to stream processes for several reasons: 1) influences channel
form through root strength; 2) contributes roughness elements (LWD) that force pools and form
steps; 3) provides allochthonous inputs of organic matter, and; 4) shades and insulates the
channel which influences both summer and winter water temperature. Expressed as a proportion
of the reach, riparian cover data were collected for three vegetation heights (canopy >5m, mid
level .5 to 5m, and ground cover). Visual estimates of cover density and general
structural/species vegetation classes (e.g. coniferous, deciduous) of each layer were recorded.
Overall, riparian vegetation was dense. The proportion of the reaches with riparian vegetation
presence (combination of all three vegetative layers) was approximately 100% for most of
stream km (Figure 8). This was true for each of the three levels of riparian vegetation considered
separately. Because riparian density was high throughout the ecoregion density did not vary
significantly by stream order.
E ^
a °
2
°- CD
S> d
O) 01
C 0H
V
p
ci'
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Riparian vegetation cover (proportion of reach)
Figure 8. Cumulative distribution function of overall riparian coverage (includes ground-layer,
low canopy, high canopy).
Three types of canopy (riparian vegetation >5m) cover types were considered, coniferous,
deciduous, and mixed coniferous and deciduous cover. Coniferous riparian canopy was rare,
exceeding 10% in only 20% of stream km with most channels having a deciduous or mixed stand
(Figures 9, 10, and 11). Canopy composition did vary significantly by stream order with first
order streams having highest mean proportion of coniferous canopy and 2nd order streams have
highest mean proportion of deciduous canopy.
Summary: riparian zones are highly vegetated overall and significant relationships between
vegetation and stream order/size were not detected. The coniferous component of the canopy
was relatively minor overall with most streams having a deciduous or mixed
coniferous/deciduous canopy. There was some variation in canopy cover species type by stream
order.
18
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
c
.g
1
0
Q.
5
3
E
3
1
o
00
Ci
CD
Ci "
Ci"
CM
Ci"
0
Ci
_
^_____--^^
^
/
^T
1 1 1 1 1
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Coniferous canopy (proportion of reach)
Figure 9. Cumulative distribution function of coniferous riparian canopy presence.
9.
Q.
O
00
ci
CD
3
I °
O
£
S CM
c ci
q
ci'
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deciduous canopy cover (proportion of reach)
1.0
Figure 10. Cumulative distribution function of deciduous riparain canopy presence.
19
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
I
I
o
'
00
ci'
CD
ci'
CNj
ci'
q
ci'
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Mixed canopy cover (proportion of reach)
1.0
Figure 11. Cumulative distribution function of mixed (coniferous and deciduous) tree canopy
presence.
Stream shading from riparian canopy is based on the average of densiometer readings at each of
the 11 transects at each sample site. Separate calculations from the bank and mid channel were
made. Overall, shade was high with mean bank shading of 89% and mean mid-channel shade of
80% estimated for the ecoregion (Figures 12 and 13).
o
Q.
O
i
3
E
00
ci'
CD
Ci
CM
o
q
ci'
40 60 80
Bank canopy shade (percent)
100
Figure 12. Cumulative distribution function of bank shade.
20
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
2
Q.
g
o
£
O)
00
ci'
CD
CNj
ci'
q
ci
20 40 60 80
Mid-channel canopy shade (percent)
100
Figure 13. Cumulative distribution function of mid-channel canopy shade.
As expected, stream shade was related to stream size. The strongest relationship was between
mid channel percent shade and bankfull width (Figure 14) with mid channel shade decreasing as
bankfull width increases. The relation of shade to stream size was also reflected in stream order
differences with third order streams having lower percent mid-channel and bank shade (Figure
15).
120
100
0) on
c oU
9
c
1 60
73
Ol
ro
5 40
20
-5
15 25
Bankfull width (m)
35
45
55
Figure 14. Relation of mid-channel shade to stream width (r= -.62).
21
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
D
re
Stream order
Figure 15. Histogram of mean bank and mid-channel riparian shade by stream order.
VI.C. 4. Riparian disturbance indicators
Currently, stress indicator data are available only for human-caused riparian disturbance. These
data were collected by examining the channel, bank and riparian area on both sides of the stream
at each of the 11 evenly spaced transects and visually estimating the presence and proximity of
disturbance (Hayslip et al. 1994). Eleven different categories of disturbance were evaluated.
Each disturbance category is assign a value based on its presence and proximity to the stream
(1.67, in channel or on bank; 1.0, within 10m of stream; .67, beyond 10m from stream; and 0, not
present). Data were expanded to calculate a proximity-weight disturbance index for each reach
(Kaufmann et al. 1999). This index combines the extent of disturbance (based on presence or
absence) as well as the proximity of the disturbance to the stream.
Most streams had some level of human-caused riparian disturbance when including all
disturbance categories; with average 1.34 disturbance index (Figure 16, Table 5). An estimated
16% of stream km had no riparian disturbance. Of the disturbed sites, logging was the most
common form of riparian disturbance (42%) followed by roads (26%) and agriculture (both
pasture and crops 15%) (Figure 17).
22
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
op
O
Q.
O
<
E
3
O
O
o
1234
All riparian disturbance (proximity wted. sum)
Figure 16. Cumulative distribution function of riparian disturbance (all types).
Agric.
15%
Logging
42%
Figure 17. Percent of overall riparian disturbance attributed to each of the major disturbance
categories. Percentages based on estimated stream km with riparian disturbance.
Using the range of riparian disturbance index range of values (0 to 1.67), it was possible to
express the level of individual disturbance categories in terms of low, medium and high
(<0.67,low; 0.67 to 1.0, medium, and 1.0 tol.67, high). Disturbance was generally low (Table 5).
Mean disturbance index for logging, agriculture (combines both pasture and crop thus possible
score of 2 x 1.67), and roads was < 0.67 for each. Significant differences in riparian disturbance
between stream orders were not observed. First order streams had more logging disturbance than
23
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
2nd and 3rd order streams but differences were not significant (P>0.05). When all disturbance
categories were added the average for all sites was 1.34 (and ranged from 1.3 to 1.53 for 1st -3rd
orders), which indicates a high level of disturbance for the combined categories).
Table 5. Mean disturbance index value of 1st, 2nd and 3rd order streams for five disturbance
categories.
Stream order
Disturbance category
Logging
Roads
Agriculture
Buildings
Pavement
All disturbance combine
All
0.56
0.35
0.20
0.08
0.07
1.34
V*~~
0.61
0.36
0.16
0.05
0.06
1.30
_i
0.48
0.31
0.33
0.16
0.11
1.53
_,
0.41
0.33
0.26
0.13
0.09
1.34
VI.C .5. LWD
Large woody debris (LWD), as single pieces or in accumulations, alters flow and traps sediment,
thus influencing channel form and related habitat features. The quantity, type and size of LWD
recruited to the channel from the riparian zone and hillslopes is important to stream function in
channels that are influenced by LWD (typical of 1st -3rd order streams in the Pacific Northwest).
Loss of LWD without a recruitment source can result in long-term alteration of channel form as
well as loss of habitat complexity in the form of pools, overhead cover, flow velocity variations,
and retention and sorting of spawning-sized gravels. Field data were categorized into five size
classes (very small, small, medium, large, very large) based on the following length/diameter
matrix (Table 6). The following is an overview of LWD quantity (pieces per 100m) by size class
in the ecoregion.
Table 6. Definition of the five LWD size classes based on piece length and diameter.
Diameter (m)
0.1-0.3
>0.3-0.6
>0.6-0.8
>0.8
1.5-5
Very small
Small
Small
Medium
Length (m)
>5-15
Small
Medium
Large
Large
>15
Medium
Large
Large
Very large
Mean in-channel LWD of all sizes (>10cm diameter and > 1.5 m long) was estimated as 43.4
pieces/100m of stream km (Table 7 and Figure 18). There was a negative correlation between
LWD quantity and stream size, which was an expected result as LWD retention is higher in
smaller streams where individual pieces can key in to the banks and stream power is less able to
float wood downstream. Another contributing factor may be that larger streams have historically
received more intense logging pressure due to the location in the more accessible lowlands (Bob
Hughes, Dynamac, Pers. Comm. 1999). Thus, smaller streams may have retained their input
source for a longer period and this LWD is still evident in the channel. LWD quantity was
24
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
significantly different between stream order (1st,
100m).
,rd
48.3; 2nd, 36.0; and 3 , 28.4 mean pieces per
o
+j
I
o
Q.
00
ci
CD
Ci
3 ^r
E ci
o
I 2
q
ci'
50 100 150
LWD all sizes (pieces/IOOm)
200
Figure 18. Cumulative distribution function of LWD pieces (diameter > 10cm).
Table 7. Mean LWD quantity (pieces per 100m) by size class in 1st,
Coast Range ecoregion 1994-95.
nd
and 3rd order streams,
Size class
Stream order
All streams
, st
»nd
,rd
Very Small
Small
Medium
Large
Very Large
All pieces
20.3
11.2
6.1
5.1
0.7
43.4
21.4
12.7
7.1
6.2
0.9
48.3
18.9
8.9
4.8
2.9
0.4
36.0
16.2
6.5
3.2
2.1
0.3
28.4
Because larger sized LWD pieces have a greater ability to influence channel form, analyzing the
medium and larger sized pieces provides a different view of the LWD content of the streams.
There were fewer medium and larger sized pieces (mean 11.9 pieces/100m) than the smaller size
class (Table 7 and Figure 19). Differences between stream orders were significant with first
order streams having the greatest abundance of medium and larger sized LWD (mean 14.2
pieces/100m). For the west side of the Cascade Mountains, the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) suggests stream channels should have >80 pieces per mile (5 pieces per 100m)
of LWD >24in (>60cm) diameter in order to be properly functioning (NMFS 1996). Generally,
streams of the ecoregion met this criterion as the mean number of pieces in this large and very
large size class averaged 5.8 pieces per 100m across all stream orders. LWD of these size
classes was much more abundant in 1st order streams than in 2nd or 3rd order (Table 7). Overall,
25
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
NMFS LWD criterion was not met 61% of the stream km. Streams that did not meet the NMFS
criterion by stream order are as follows: 52 % of 1st, 77 % of 2nd, and 83 % of 3rd order streams.
o
+j
I
o
Q.
s
00
ci
CD
q
ci
10 20 30 40
LWD (pieces/100m)
50
60
Figure 19. Cumulative distribution function of medium to very large sized LWD.
VI.C. 6. Habitat units
Habitat units are the reach scale classification of habitat based on physical stream features. Fast
water areas (i.e. riffles and cascades) are those with higher water velocity, surface turbulence and
often shallower water depth in wadeable streams (Bisson et al. 1982). Slow water areas (i.e.
glides and pools) have low water velocity, less surface turbulence and are the deeper portion of
the streams. These categories are useful for describing the habitat of streams as species
assemblages use these areas differently.
Overall, streams of the ecoregion had a greater proportion of slow water than fast (Figure 20).
Dry/subterranean flow areas and waterfalls were relatively minor in terms of stream length.
Major categories of habitat unit types (fast and slow water) were poorly correlated with measures
of stream size (e.g. basin area and bankfull width), although significant differences in
proportions of habitat types were observed for stream orders (analysis of variance, P<0.05). First
order streams had the greatest proportion of stream length in fast water and in dry condition
(Figure 21). Length of stream in falls was very minor (< 0.5% stream length in each stream
order). As expected, 1st and 2nd order streams had a greater percentage of stream length in falls
due to the greater stream gradients.
26
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
Falls Dry
0% 7%
Riffle/cascade
37%
Pools/glides
56%
Figure 20. Percent of stream length within each of the four habitat types.
Stream order
Figure 21. Comparison of mean percent of stream length within each of three water type
categories by stream order.
Pool formation and depth is a function of processes that influence bed form including stream
size, substrate type and availability and quantities of large roughness elements that force pools or
accumulate sediment that form steps. Thus, pool quantity and residual depth are related to stream
power as well as channel complexity. In the Coast Range, both pool quantity and residual depth
were related to stream size. Pool quantity expressed as percent of stream reach in pool was
inversely correlated with stream width and varied by stream order with a mean of 27, 40 and
24% for 1st, 2nd and 3rd order streams (Figure 22). Pool depth was directly correlated with stream
27
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
width and varied consistently by stream order 47.8, 95.8, and 129.1 cm, for 1st - 3rd order
streams, respectively (Figure 23).
110
90
70
50
30
10
-10
Stream order
Figure 22. Box plot of percent pool by stream order. Median, 75-25% quartiles, and non-outlier
min-max, shown with inner box, outer box, and bars, respectively.
450
350
£ 250
o
a
E 150
3
TO
50
-50
Stream order
Figure 23. Box plot of maximum pool depth by stream order. Median, 75-25% quartiles, and
non-outlier min-max, shown with inner box, outer box, and bars, respectively.
28
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
VI.C. 7. Fish cover
Many structural components of streams are used by fish as concealment from predators and as
hydraulic refugia (e.g. bank undercuts, LWD, boulders). Although this metric is defined by fish
use, fish cover is also indicative of the overall complexity of the channel which is likely
beneficial to other organisms. Using the metric of natural fish cover (includes overhanging
vegetation, undercut banks, LWD, brush, and boulders), the mean of 0.62 areal cover proportion
was estimated for the ecoregion. Mean cover decreased by stream order (mean .67, .53, and .49
by 1s
2nd and 3rd stream order) and differences were significant between 1s
and 2nd and
1st and
3r order streams (Figure 24). Also, the quantity of natural fish cover was inversely correlated to
stream width.
1.6
_ 1-4
c
o
'" -I O
o 1.2
Q.
b 1.0
o
u
I 0.8
_re_
g 0.6
o
u
I 0.4
ro
3
1 0.2
0.0
Stream order
Figure 24. Box plot of natural fish cover by stream order. Median, 75-25% quartiles, and non-
outlier min-max, shown with inner box, outer box, and bars, respectively.
VI. D. Fish and Amphibian Resources
101 of the 104 sites were sampled for vertebrates (fish and amphibians) representing an
estimated 23020 stream km. Of these, 95% held vertebrates (fish and/or amphibians) and 78%
held fish. Streams where amphibians were captured but fish were absent occurred in 17% of
stream km. A total of 36 different species were sampled, representing 10 fish families (24
species) and eight amphibian families (12 species) (Appendix 4). General frequency statistics
are in Table 8.
29
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
Table 8. Frequency of occurrence of vertebrates, Coast Range ecoregion 1994-95.
Statistic
sites w/fish
sites w/o fish
sites w/amphibians
sites w/o amphibians
sites w/amphibians and
no fish
sites w/no vertebrates
total sites sampled
sites w/non-native
amphibians
sites w/non-native fish
sites w/non-natives all
Sites w/native
anadromous sp.
# of Sites
89
12
58
43
10
2
101
1
6
7
70
Total estimated
stream km
17982
5039
15159
7861
38549
1184
23020
65.0
982
1047
10483
% of stream
length
78
22
66
34
17
5
100
0
4
5
46
Fish were present at most sample locations (78% stream km). Streams without fish were mostly
1s order streams (only 1.2% of this length was 2n order). This was an expected result as these
smaller, and often steeper, streams are the upward limit offish distribution.
Non-native species were rare in the ecoregion. Only four non-native species (3 fish, 1
amphibian) were sampled, occurring in 5% of stream km. Of these, only brook trout occurred at
more than one site. This char species had the broadest non-native species distribution (3% of
streams).
Salmonids were the most broadly distributed vertebrate family in the region, followed by cottids
Figure 25). Dicamptodontids (Cope's and Pacific giant salamanders) were the most common
amphibian family. Coastal cutthroat trout were the most broadly distributed vertebrate species
(Figure 26). This cutthroat trout sub-species is distributed on the West Coast of North America
from Northern California to Southeast Alaska (Wydoski and Whitney 1979). Coastal cutthroat
trout use a variety of habitats, including large and small rivers, very small, ocean-connected,
streams and isolated stream reaches above migration barriers. Often, coastal cutthroat trout are
the only salmonid species present in high elevation streams (Connelly and Hall 1999). This
species has a variety of life history strategies with anadromous, fluvial and resident forms as well
as intermediates (Trotter 1989). This life-history variability may be in response to high
environmental variability (pressure) under which the species evolved (Northcote 1997).
30
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
£
O)
E
ro
£!
01
O
8.
80.0 - -
70.0 - -
60.0 - -
50.0 - -
40.0 - -
30.0 - -
20.0 - -
10.0 --
0.0 4-
n ii 1-1 1-1
Species
Figure 25. Histogram of vertebrate family occurrence.
60.0
£ 50.0 - -
E
1
Q.
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
ffl
Species
Figure 26. Histogram offish species occurrence.
Although cutthroat trout inhabit the greatest stream length, the abundance of other salmonids was
higher where they co-occurred with cutthroat. Both coho and steelhead had significantly higher
abundance (based on percent of total fish individuals captured) compared to cutthroat in streams
where cutthroat were sympatric. The abundance and distribution of coho salmon and steelhead
can be difficult to evaluate due to the frequency of stocking of these two species (e.g. Oregon
put-and-take rainbow fisheries, coho planting in coastal Washington).
31
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
The dominant cottid species, reticulate sculpin (Figure 25), are native to coastal streams of
Washington and Oregon north to the Puget Sound with disjunct distribution in Central and
northern California (Lee et al. 1980).
The rarest native fish species sampled was the sand roller with distribution in <1% of the
estimated stream miles. Its distribution within the Coast Range ecoregion is limited to streams
within the Columbia River basin (Lee et al. 1980).
Pacific giant salamanders were the most broadly distributed amphibian, with presence estimated
in over 30% of stream km, followed by rough-skinned newts (Figure 27). Approximately one
third of the estimated stream km did not have amphibians.
U)
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
5.0
0.0
1
, 1
PI l-l n ,-, ,-,
Species
Figure 27. Histogram of amphibian species occurrence.
Guild description:
The habitat characteristic descriptions of vertebrate species are listed in Appendix 5 and
Appendix 6 and summary statistics for vertebrate metrics are Appendix 7. Fish classification is
based on Zarabon et al. (1999) and amphibian classification is based on Stebbins 1954 and Bob
Hughes' personal conversations with Deanna Olsen, Robert Storm, Andrew Blaustein, and Bruce
Bury. Amphibians were placed within the context of the fish classifications as much as possible
to generate an overall compatible vertebrate dataset (Personal comm. Shay Howlin, Oregon State
University, 1999). The following classifications are used to build indices of biological integrity
(IBIs) but they are also useful for providing an overview of the species within the ecoregion:
1) Temperature guilds3 classifications; warm, cool, and cold water preference.
32
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
2) Sensitivity guildstolerant, intermediate, and sensitive are classifications based on species
ability to tolerate pollution and disturbance that is human induced.
3) Habitat guildsrefers to where species typically occur in their physical environment.
Hiders use more protected habitats, benthic species are closely associated with substrate (can
be indicative of habitat complexity) and water column species are commonly found there.
4) Trophic guilds give insight into the trophic organization of vertebrate assemblages based on
diet: filter feeders, herbivores, invertivores, and invertivore/piscivore.
Most Coast Range vertebrates are cool and coldwater species (Figure 28) and are sensitive or
intermediately sensitive to habitat change (Figure 29). There are substantially more benthic and
hider species than water column species Figure 30) and most species are invertivores or
invertivores/piscivores (Figure 31).
120
100
80
60
Q.
V)
0)
>
40
20
-20
Warm
Cool
Temperature category
Cold
Figure 28. Percent of vertebrate species within each temperature guild, (percentages based on
site relative abundance expanded by site weighting factor). Median, 75-25% quartiles, and non-
outlier min-max, shown with inner box, outer box, and bars.
33
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
.
Q.
t/>
0)
120
100
80
60
40
20
-20
Tolerant
Intermediate
Sensitivity category
Sensitive
Figure 29. Percent of vertebrate species within each sensitivity guild (percentages based on site
relative abundance expanded by site weighting factor). Median, 75-25% quartiles, and non-
outlier min-max, shown with inner box, outer box, and bars.
120
100
80
'5 60
Q.
Ol
ra 40
01
01
> 20
-20
Benthic
Water column
Habitat category
Hider
Figure 30. Percent of vertebrate species within each habitat guild, Coast Range ecoregion
(1994-95) (percentages based on site relative abundance expanded by site weighting factor).
Median, 75-25% quartiles, and non-outlier min-max, shown with inner box, outer box, and bars.
34
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
100
80
s?
to
5 60
HI
ra 40
.2
0)
> 20
0
-20
T
U
Filter
:E
« £
if Hi
- o
1
Herbiv. Omniv. Invertiv. Invertiv/Pisc. Pisciv.
Trophic Category
Figure 31. Percent of vertebrate species within each trophic guild, Coast Range ecoregion
(1994-95) (percentages based on site relative abundance expanded by site weighting factor).
Median, 75-25% quartiles, and non-outlier min-max, shown with inner box, outer box, and bars.
VI. E. Benthic invertebrates
Macroinvertebrates were collected at each of the 11 transects (one D-net kick per transect).
These transect samples were combined into a reach composite sample based on habitat type of
each transect (either riffle or pool). This approach resulted in uneven sampling effort between
sites (Ecology 1999). Only data collected from riffles were used in this analysis. Riffle data
were available from 93 of the 104 sample reaches representing 20,122 stream km. The following
seven metrics were comparable between the two states and were used in the analysis (Table 9).
35
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
Table 9. Description of benthic macroinvertebrate indicator metrics (Source: Resh and Jackson
1993 and Resh 1995).
Metric
Taxa richness
EPT taxa
richness
Intolerant taxa
richness
% EPT
% Chironomid
% scrapers
% shredders
Description
Overall variety of the macroinvertebrate
assemblage - the total number of different
taxa. Useful measure of diversity or variety
of the assemblage. Sensitive to most types
of human disturbance.
Number of taxa in the orders Ephemeroptera
(mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies) and
Trichoptera (caddis flies)
Taxa richness of those organisms considered
to be sensitive to perturbation.
Percent of the total sample organisms that is
ephemeroptera, plecoptera and trichoptera.
A composite measure for identity and
dominance.
Percent of the total sample organisms that is
in the family Chironomidae. A composite
measure for identity and dominance.
Percent of organisms that scrape upon
periphyton. A measure of trophic
organization based on feeding strategies and
guilds.
Percent of organisms that shred leaf litter. A
measure of trophic organization based on
feeding strategies and guilds
Rationale
Decreases with low water
quality associated with increasing
human influence. Sensitive to
most types of human disturbance.
:In general, these taxa are
sensitive to human disturbance.
Taxa that are intolerant to
pollution based on classification
from Wisseman 1996.
Presumed higher pollution
tolerance of this dipteran family
Scrapers tend to increase where
algae is abundant, typically when
streams are enriched or open to
sunlight.
Shredders are sensitive to
toxicants and to modifications of
the riparian zone.
rationale based from Resh and Jackson 1993.
The metric 'taxa richness' gives an overall indication of the variability of macroinvertebrate
communities in the Coast Range (Figure 32). The total number of taxa ranges from 5 to 60
species. These seven metrics are described in Table 10 and more complete summary statistics are
presented in Appendix 8.
36
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
00
ci'
Q. CD
o o
O
£
O)
CNI
ci'
q
ci'
10 20 30 40 50
Invertebrate taxa (number)
60
Figure 32. Cumulative distribution function of total invertebrate taxa richness.
Table 10. Summary statistics for seven macroinvertebrate metrics, Coast Range ecoregion,
1994-1995.
Metric
Taxa richness
EPT taxa richness
Intolerant taxa
richness
% Chironomid
% EPT
% scrapers
% shredders
Mean
38.3
19.4
8.0
29.9
45.3
15.4
14.2
38.0
17.0
7.0
29.3
42.8
10.5
12.7
5.0
1.0
0.0
0.3
1.5
0.2
0.0
60.0 55.0
37.0 36.0
22.0 22.0
86.8
97.5
95.6
82.4
86.5
96.0
95.4
82.4
Median Min Max Range Std. Dev.
11.99
8.42
6.01
19.78
23.20
15.08
11.23
Although the frequency of shredders and scrapers show a more narrow range of variability, these
values are within those described by Resh (1995) for the expected ratios of functional feeding
groups where a range of stream size and riparian condition are represented (Table 11).
Table 11. Examples of expected functional feeding-group ratios for scrapers and shredders
from Resh (1995) based on information from Cummins and Wilzbach (1985).
Metric
% shredders
% scrapers
Shaded small
streams
>25%
<25%
Open, small
streams
>10%
>25%
Open, medium
streams
<5%
>25%
37
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
In an assessment of Oregon Coast Range streams Canale (1999) found critical levels of total taxa
richness and EPT taxa richness of 30 and 18 as indicative of impaired stream condition based on
analyses developed from Oregon reference sites. Comparing these results, approximately 30%
of stream km had <30 taxa richness (Figure 32) and approximately 50% had <18 EPT taxa
(Figure 33).
o
Q.
I
4-*
j5
3
E
o
£
O)
00
ci'
CD
ci'
CNI
ci
q
ci
10 20 30
EPT taxa (number)
Figure 33. Cumulative distribution function of EPT taxa richness.
VII. Relations Between Indicators and Stressors
Our second objective was to examine relationships between indicators of stream condition
(chemistry, benthics, and vertebrates) and stressor indicators by posing the following questions:
What were the consistent indicator/stress relationships among metrics?
How strong were these relationships - could a linear relationship be detected?
To examine indicator/stressor relationships simple correlation tests (Pearson product-moment,
P< 0.05 significance level) were run on all combinations of indicators as illustrated by the
following matrix (Table 12). Both water chemistry and physical habitat are Stressors as well as
indicators of stress, depending on the relationship. Although correlations do not imply
cause/effect relationships they can provide insight into the ecological processes that may be at
work. Significant correlations are termed weak, moderate, or strong where r< .50, r>50 and<.75,
and r>.75 , respectively.
38
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
Table 12. Possible combinations of stressor and indicator relationships.
Indicators
Water chemistry
Physical habitat
Benthic inverts.
Vertebrates
Stressors
Water chemistry
X
X
Physical habitat
X
X
X
Riparian disturbance
X
X
X
X
Many significant correlations between indicators were detected yet most were weak (Appendix
9). Combining correlation results, observations of scatter plots, and our knowledge of indicators
described in the previous section, we could further refine the stressors of importance. The
following statements summarize the outcome of correlations between indicators:
Most of the statistically significant correlations between water chemistry and physical habitat
indicators lacked a detectable linear relationship (very low r-values). Many chemistry
indicators were correlated to percent sand/fines. Of these, DO had a moderate correlation.
Several water chemistry indicators were correlated with agricultural riparian disturbance.
These correlations vary in a predictable direction, being positively correlated with nutrient
inputs and negatively correlated with DO. Most of these correlations were weak.
All correlations of physical habitat indicators with riparian disturbance were weak. The most
consistent relationships were for percent sand/fines, which is positively correlated to most of
the disturbance types. Both logging disturbance and habitat complexity indicators are related
to stream order.
Vertebrate indicators (metrics of individuals, families, species and individuals) were
consistently negatively correlated with indicators of shade, cover and LWD. These results
would be unexpected but for the fact that habitat features and fish species were found to vary
with stream size which tends to mask the actual relationship. All correlations were weak
All benthic invertebrate metrics assessed (taxa richness, EPT taxa and intolerant taxa) are
positively correlated with DO. As previously mentioned, the benthic indicators had low
values according to comparisons of Oregon reference condition (50% <18 EPT taxa). The
abundance of fine sediment and the correlation of invertebrate metrics and % fines support
this relationship.
All benthic invertebrate metrics were inversely correlated with increasing fine sediment. EPT
taxa had a moderate correlation. EPT and intolerant taxa metrics had weak yet consistent
correlations with road and agricultural riparian disturbance. None were correlated to logging
riparian disturbance.
Summary
Of the physical habitat indicators, percent sand and fine sediment was most often correlated to
biotic indicators, with an inverse relation to benthic invertebrate and sensitive vertebrate
indicators. Sand and fine sediment are common substrate size (40% of stream km had sand/fine
as the dominant substrate size fraction) in the ecoregion. Although fine sized sediment occurs
39
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
naturally in the Coast Range due to the geology, human disturbance can still influence its
quantity. The correlation of agriculture and road type disturbance to the percent of fine sediment
suggests these riparian indicators may be sensitive to detecting human disturbance beyond
background (natural occurrence).
Chemical stressors of temperature and DO were frequently correlated with physical and biotic
indicators. Overall the streams were cold, with only 1% exceeding water quality standards.
Within this range of cold temperatures, there was an apparent relationship between relatively
warm temperatures and biotic indicators, as indicators of vertebrate productivity and species
diversity were positively correlated to temperature. Note that these values do not necessarily
represent the warmest summer temperatures as they are based on only one sample. Continuous
data would likely yield different results (Mochan 1998).
Univariate correlations indicate weak yet possibly meaningful relationships between biota and
physical habitat with the strongest being the inverse relation between benthic invertebrate and
fine sediment quantity. To further explore the relation between benthic invertebrates and
indicators of physical habitat diversity, other variables (LWD quantity, thalweg variability, and
substrate variability) were added to the regression model. Multiple variables of habitat diversity
did not improve the model beyond the correlation with percent fine sediment. Improvement was
found when variables of stream size (bankfull and basin area) were included, thus accounting for
the differences in stream order. Because macroinvertebrates are variable within a reach (e.g.
macroinvertebrate community differences between pools and riffles), habitat indicators that are
also variable on a sub-reach scale are most likely to be related. This is consistent with our
finding that percent fine sediment was consistently correlated with macroinvertebrate abundance
and that other indicators of habitat diversity did not improve the model.
VIII. Concluding Statement
This report provides a description of stream condition in the Oregon and Washington Coast
Range ecoregion based on 1994-95 data collected with EMAP methodology. When more data
become available further analyses could be pursued including: 1) assess ecoregion-wide
condition of streams and rank stressors by comparing stream data to reference condition and 2)
use landscape indicators developed from spatial data (Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics
generated from TM satellite imagery or air photo analysis) to establish relationship between
stream condition and landscape processes. These types of information will be useful for defining
trends in condition and determining ecological risk to stream resources.
40
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
IX. References
American Public Health Association. 1989. Standard methods for the examination of water and
wastewater, 17th edition. Lenore S. Clesceri et al. Editors. Published jointly by the
American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association and Water
Pollution Control Federation. Baltimore, Maryland.
Bisson, P. A, I, L. Nielson, R. A. Palmason, and L.E. Gore. 1982. A system of naming habitat
types in small streams, with examples of habitat utilization by salmonids during low
stream flow. Pages 62-73 in N. B. Armantrout, ed. Acquisition and utilization of aquatic
habitat information. American Fisheries Society, Portland, Oregon.
Canale, G. 1999. BORIS Benthic evaluation of ORegon rlverS. Draft report. Department of
Environmental Quality Laboratory - Biomonitoring Section. Portland, Oregon.
Chaloud, DJ. and D.V. Peck. 1994. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program -
Surface Waters: Integrated Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Surface Waters
Resource Group, 1994 Activities. EPA 600/X-91/080, Rev. 2.00. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Las Vegas, NV 89193.
Cline, C. 1973. The effects of forest fertilization on the Tahuya River, Kitsap Peninsula,
Washington. Washington State Department of Ecology. Olympia. 55pp.
Connolly, PJ. and J.D. Hall. 1999. Biomass of coastal cutthroat trout in unlogged and
previously clear-cut basins in the central Coast Range of Oregon. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 128:890-899.
Cummins, K.W. and M.A. Wilzbach. 1985. Field procedures for analysis of functional feeding
groups of stream macroinvertebrates. Contribution 1611, Appalachian Environmental
Laboratory, University of Maryland, Frostburg, MD.
Diaz-Ramos, S., D.L. Stevens, Jr., and A.R. Olsen. 1996. EMAP Statistics Methods Manual.
EPA/620/R-96/XXX. Corvallis, OR: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research
Laboratory.
EPA. 1986. Quality criteria for water: 1986. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water Regulations and Standards. Washington, D.C.
EPA. 1998. National Water Quality Inventory, 1996 Report to Congress. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. EPA 841-R-97-008.
Feth, L.H. 1981. Chloride in natural continental watera review. U. S. Geological Survey.
Water Supply Paper 2176. United States Government printing office, Washington, D.C.
Hayslip, G., DJ. Klemm and J.M. Lazorchak. 1994. 1994 Field Operations and Methods
Manual For Streams in the Coast Range Ecoregion of Oregon and Washington and the
Yakima River Basin of Washington. Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Cincinnati, Ohio.
4l
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
Hayslip, G. 1993. EPA Region 10 instream biological monitoring handbook -for wadeable
streams in the Pacific Northwest). EPA/910/9-92-013. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington..
Hem, J.D. 1989. Study and interpretation of the chemical characteristics of natural water. 3rd
Edition. U.S. Geological Survey. Water Supply Paper 2254.Washington D.C.
Herlihy, A.T., J.L. Stoddard, and C.B. Johnson. 1998. The relationship between stream
chemistry and watershed land cover data in the mid-Atlantic region, U.S. Water, Air, and
Soil Pollution 105:377-386.
Herlihy, A.T., D.P. Larsen, S.G. Paulsen, N.S. Urquhart, and BJ. Rosenbaum. 2000. Designing
a spatially balanced randomized site selection process for regional stream surveys: the
EMAP mid-Atlantic pilot study. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment pg 95-114.
Hughes, R.M. 1995. Defining acceptable biological states by comparing with reference
conditions. Pages 31-47 in W. S. Davis and T. P. Simon editors Biological assessment
and criteria; tools for water resource planning and decision making. Lewis Publishers.
Boca Raton, Fl.
Karr, R J., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermeier, P.R. Yant, IJ. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing biological
integrity in running waters a method and its rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey,
Special Publication 5. State of Illinois, Champaign.
Kaufmann, P.R., P. Levine, E.G. Robison, C. Seeliger, and D.V. Peck. 1999. Quantifying
physical habitat in wadeable streams. EPA 620/R-99/003. Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR.
Kaufmann, P.R. and E.G. Robison. 1998. Physical habitat characterizaton. Pages 77-118 In J.M.
Lazorchak, DJ. Klemm and D.V. Peck, eds., Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program Surface Waters: Field Operations and Methods for Measuring the Ecological
Condition of Wadeable Streams. EPA/620/R-94/004F. Office of Research and Develop.,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Klemm, D. J., P.A. Lewis, F. Fulk, and J.M. Lazorchak. 1990. Macroinvertebrate field and
laboratory methods for evaluating the biological integrity of surface waters. Office of
Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
EPA-600-4-90-030.
Klemm, D.J. and J.M. Lazorchak (editors). 1994. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program 1994 pilot field operations manual for streams. EPA/620/R-94/004. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati,
Ohio.
Larsen, D.P. and S.J. Christie (editors). 1993. EMAP-surface waters 1991 pilot report.
EPA/620/R-93/003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development. Washington, DC. 201pp.
42
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
Lazorchak, J.M., DJ. Klemm and D.V. Peck (eds). 1998. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program Surface Waters: Field Operations and Methods for Measuring the
Ecological Condition of Wadeable Streams. EPA/620/R-94/004F. Office of Research
and Develop., U.S. Environmental. Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Lee, D.S., C.R. Gilbert, C.H. Hocutt, R.E. Jenkins, D.E. McAllister, and J.R. Stauffer Jr. 1980 -
et seq. Atlas of North American freshwater fishes. Publication #1980-12 North Carolina
Biological Survey. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History.
Leonard, W.P., H.A. Brown, L.L. C. Jones, K.R. McAllister, and R.M. Storm. 1993.
Amphibians of Washington and Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society. Seattle, Washington.
MacDonald, L.H., A.W. Smart, and R.C. Wissmar. 1991. Monitoring guidelines to evaluate
effects of forestry activities on streams in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, NFS Section. EPA/910/9-91-001. Seattle,
WA.
MacKenthun, K.M. 1973. Toward a cleaner environment. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Washington D.C.
Mathsoft. 1998. S-PLUS 4.5 statistical software. Data Analysis Products Division, Mathsoft
Inc. Seattle, WA.
McClain, M.E., R.E. Bilby, and F.J. Triska. 1998. Nutrient cycles and responses to disturbance
in River ecology and Management: lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion. R. J.
Naiman and R. E. Bilby editors. Springer Press, New York.
Merritt, G.D. 1994. Biological Assessment of wadeable Streams in the Coast Range Ecoregion
and the Yakima River Basin: Final Quality Assurance Project Plan. Washington State
Department of Ecology, Environmental Investigations and Laboratory Services, Olympia,
WA, 15pp.
Merritt, G.D., B. Dickes, and J.S. White. 1999. Biological assessment of small streams in the
Coast Range ecoregion and the Yakima River Basin. Washington State Department of
Ecology, Environmental Assessment Program. Publication No. 99-302. Olympia,
Washington.
Mochan, D. 1998. A preliminary summary of 1998 Oregon Plan and REMAP temperature data.
Oregon DEQ Biomonitoring Section, Oregon DEQ Laboratories, Portland, OR.
Montgomery, D.F. and J.M. Buffmgton. 1998. Channel processes, classification and esponse in
River ecology and Management: lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion. R. J.
Naiman and R. E. Bilby editors. Springer Press, New York.
National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NRSP-3)/National Trends Network. 2000. ADP
Program Office, Illinois State Water Survey, 2204 Griffith Drive, Champaign, IL.
43
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
National Marine Fisheries Service. 1996. Appendix II in Coastal salmon conservation: working
guidance for comprehensive salmon restoration initiatives on the Pacific Coast. National
Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, Protected Resources Division, Portland OR.
(contact Garth Griffin 503-231-2005).
Northcote, T.G. 1997. Why sea-run? An exploration into the migratory/residency spectrum of
coastal cutthroat trout. Pages 20-26 in J. D. Hall, P. A. Bisson, and R. E. Gresswell,
editors. Sea-run cutthroat trout: biology, management, and future conservation. Oregon
Chapter, American Fisheries Society, Corvallis.
ODEQ. 1990. 1990 Water Quality Status Assessment Report [305(b) Report]. Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality. Portland.
ODEQ. 1998. Listing Criteria for Oregon's 1998 303d List of water quality limited water
bodies. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Portland.
Omernik, J.M. 1987. Aquatic ecoregions of the conterminous United Statesmap supplement.
Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 77:118-125.
Overton, W.S., D. White, and D.L. Stevens, Jr. 1990. Design Report for EMAP, Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program. EPA 600/3-91/053. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR.
Peterson, S.A., D.P. Larsen, S.G. Paulsen, and N.S. Urquhart. 1998. Regional lake trophic
patterns in the northeastern United States: three approaches. Environmental Management
22:789-801.
Peterson, S.A., N.S. Urquhart, and E.B. Welch. 1999. Sample representativeness: a must for
reliable regional lake condition estimates. Environmental Science and Technology.
33:1559-1565.
Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross, R.M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment
Protocols For Use In Streams and Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and
Fish. EPA/444/4-89-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C.
Rand, G.M. and S.R. Petrocelli. 1985. Fundamentals of Aquatic Toxicology, methods and
applications. Hemisphere Publishing Corp. New York.
Resh V.H. 1995. Freshwater benthic macroinvertebrates and rapid assessment procedures for
water quality monitoring in developing newly industrialized countries. Pages 167-177 in
W. S. Davis and T. P. Simon editors Biological assessment and criteria; tools for water
resource planning and decision making. Lewis Publishers. Boca Raton, Fl.
Resh, V.H. and J.K. Jackson. 1993. Rapid assessment approaches to biomonitoring using
benthic macroinvertebrates. Pages 195-223 in D. M. Rosenberg and V. H. Resh editors.
Freshwater biomonitoring and benthic macroinvertebrates. Chapman and Hall, New
York.
44
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
StatSoft, Inc. 1995. STATISTICA for Windows (Computer program manual). Tulsa, OK.
StatSoft Inc. 2325 East 13th Street, Tulsa, OK 74104.
Stebbins, R.C. 1954. Amphibians and reptiles of western North America. McGraw Hill. New
York.
Stevens, D.L., Jr. and A.R. Olsen. 1999. Spatially restricted surveys over time for aquatic
resources. Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics.
Stolte, K.W. and W.D. Smith. In Review. 1998 forest health monitoring national technical
report. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report.
Strahler, A.N. 1957. Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology. American Geophysical
Union Transactions 38:913-920.
Thornton, K.W, G.E. Saul, and D.E. Hyatt. 1994. Environmental monitoring and assessment
program: assessment framework. EPA/620/R-94/016. Research Triangle Park, N.C.:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, EMAP
Center.
Trotter P.C. 1989. Coastal cutthroat trout: a life history compendium. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 118:463-473.
Washington State. 1992. Chapter 173-201 WAC, Water Quality Standards for surface waters of
the State of Washington. Statutory Authority: Chapter 90.48 RCW. 92-24-037 (Order
92-29), 173-201A-010, filed 11/25/92. Olympia, Washington.
Washington Department of Ecology. 1990. 1990 Statewide Water Quality Assessment [305(b)
Report]. Olympia, Washington.
Welch, E.B., J.M. Jacoby, and C.W. May. 1998. Stream quality in River ecology and
Management: lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion. R. J. Naiman and R. E. Bilby
editors. Springer Press, New York.
Wisseman, R. 1996. Benthic Invertebrate Biomonitoring and Bioassessment in Western
Montane Streams. Aquatic Biology Associates, Inc. Corvallis, OR.
Wydoski, R.S. and R.R. Whitney. 1979. Inland fishes of Washington. University of
Washington Press. Seattle, Washington.
Zaroban, D.W., M.P. Mulvey, T.R. Maret, R.M. Hughes, and G. D. Merritt. 1999. Classification
of species attributes for Pacific Northwest freshwater fishes. Northwest Science. 73(2)
81-92.
45
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
46
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
X. Glossary
Abiotic Non-living characteristic of the environment.
Accuracy The closeness of a measured or computed value to its true value.
Acidity A measure of the number of free hydrogen ions (H+) in a solution that can chemically
react with other substances.
Alkalinity Measure of the negative ions that are available to react and neutralize free hydrogen
ions. Some of most common of these include hydroxide (OH), sulfate (SO42"), phosphate (PO4),
bicarbonate (HCOs) and carbonate
Allochthonous inputs Organic matter derived from an external source.
Anadromous life history Moving from sea to freshwater for reproduction
Aquatic community An association of interacting populations of aquatic organisms in a given
waterbody or habitat.
Assemblage A phylogentic subset of a biological community (e.g., fish assemblage,
macroinvertebrate assemblage).
Best management practices (BMP) Methods, measures, or practices to prevent or reduce water
pollution, including structural and nonstructural controls and operation and maintenance
procedures.
Benthic Pertaining to the bottom (bed) of a water body.
Bioassay A toxicity test that uses selected organisms to determine the acute or chronic effects of
a chemical pollutant or whole effluent.
Biocriteria See biological criteria.
Biological assessment An evaluation of the biological condition of a waterbody that uses
biological surveys and other direct measurements of resident biota in surface waters.
Biological criteria Numeric values or narrative expressions that describe the reference
biological integrity of aquatic assemblages within a water body that has been assigned a
designated aquatic life use.
Biological integrity Characteristic of an aquatic system described as "A balanced, integrated,
adaptive community of organisms having species composition, diversity, and functional
organization comparable to that of natural habitat of the region" (Karr and Dudley, 1981)
Biological monitoring The use of a biological entity as a detector and its response as a measure
to determine environmental conditions.
Biological oxygen demand The amount of oxygen that can be taken up by nonliving organic
matter as it decomposes by aerobic biochemical action.
47
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
Biological standard A legally established State rule that includes a designated biological use
(goal) and biological criteria.
Cobble Substrate particles 64-256 mm in diameter (also referred to as rubble).
Channel The section of the stream that contains the main flow.
Channelization The straightening of a stream; this is generally a result of human activity.
Community The entire biological component of an ecosystem.
Community component Any portion of a biological community. The community component
may pertain to the taxonomic group (fish, invertebrates, algae), the taxonomic category (phylum,
order, family, genus, species), the feeding strategy (herbivore, omnivore, carnivore) or
organizational level (individual, population, community association) of a biological entity
within the aquatic community.
Confidence interval An interval defined by two values, called confidence limits, calculated
from sample data with a procedure which ensures that the unknown true value of the quantity of
interest falls between such calculated values in a specified percentage of samples.
Designated uses Types of water uses specified in water quality standards for each waterbody or
segment, whether or not they are being attained. For example, salmonid spawning, primary
contact recreation, shellfish harvest.
Dissolved oxygen Oxygen dissolved in water and available for organisms to use for respiration.
Ecological Indicator Objective, well-defined, and quantifiable surrogates for environmental
values.
Ecoregion A relatively homogeneous area defined by similarity of vegetation, landform, soil,
geology, hydrology, and land use. Ecoregions help define designated use classifications of
specific waterbodies.
Embeddedness The degree to which boulders, rubble, or gravel in the stream bed are
surrounded by fine sediment.
Eutrophication The natural and artificial addition of nutrients to a waterbody, which may lead
to depleted oxygen concentrations. Eutrophication is a natural process that can be accelerated
and intensified by human activities.
Functional groups Groups of organisms that obtain energy in similar ways.
Fluvial life history Migrating between rivers and tributaries.
Glide Slow, relatively shallow stream section with little or no surface turbulence.
Geomorphic channel types Various categories of stream channels based on similarities in
channel pattern, bed material mobility, sediment transport mechanisms, position in the stream
network and various combinations of slope and valley characteristics.
48
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
Gravel Substrate particles between 2 and 64 mm in diameter.
Headwaters The origins of a stream.
Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) Used by the U.S. Geological Survey to reference hydrologic
accounting units throughout the United States.
Impairment A detrimental effect on the biological integrity of a waterbody caused by an impact
that prevents attainment of the designated use.
Impoundment A body of water contained by a barrier, such as a dam.
Land uses Activities that take place on the land, such as construction, farming, or tree clearing.
Metric A descriptive measure; as used in this document, a biological unit of measurement (e.g.
number of taxa, number of juvenile salmonids).
Macroinvertebrate Organisms that lack a backbone and can be seen with the naked eye.
Nominal condition Ecological condition indicating absence of human-caused degradation.
Non-native species A species that is not native to a particular location.
Nonpoint source pollution Pollution from sources that cannot be defined as discrete points,
such as runoff from areas of timber harvest, agriculture and grazing.
Oligotrophic Waterbody with low nutrient inputs and low organic production.
Outfall The pipe through which industrial facilities and wastewater treatment plants discharge
their effluent (wastewater) into a waterbody.
Phosphorous A nutrient that is essential for plants and animals.
Phototrophic type of energy pathway where light is converted to chemical energy by plant
photosynthesis.
pH A numerical measure of the concentration of the constituents that determine water acidity
(concentration of H4" to HO"). Measured on a scale of 1.0 (acidic) to 14.0 (basic); 7.0 is neutral.
Pool Portion of a stream with reduced current velocity, often with deeper water than
surrounding areas, and a smooth surface.
Population Ecological: an aggregate of interbreeding individuals of a biological species within
a specified location. Statistical: the total universe addressed in a sampling effort.
Precision The closeness of repeated measurements of the same quantity.
Resident life history All life history stages occur in relatively localized water body.
Riffle An area of the stream with relatively fast currents and cobble/gravel substrate.
49
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
Riparian area or zone The area of vegetation located on the bank of a natural watercourse,
such as a stream, where the flows of energy, matter, and species are most closely related to water
dynamics.
Riprap Layer of large durable material (usually rocks used) used to protect a stream bank from
erosion.
Sediment Fragments of rock, soil, and organic material transported and deposited in streams by
water, wind or other natural phenomena. Can refer to any size of particles but is often used to
indicate only particles smaller than 6mm.
Stream order A ranking of streams from headwaters to river terminus, that designates the
relative position of a stream or stream segment in a drainage basin.
Stream reach Section of stream between two specific points.
Stressor Any physical, chemical, or biological entity that can induce an adverse response.
Substrate The composition of the stream or river bottom ranging from rocks to mud.
Sympatric Co-occurring in the same area.
Transport capacity The amount of energy available for the stream to entrain and transport
sediment particles.
Toxicological indicators The effects of chemicals on laboratory organisms.
Taxon (plural taxa) A level of classification within a scientific system that categorizes living
organisms based on their physical characteristics.
Tolerance The ability to withstand a particular condition, e.g., pollution-tolerant indicates the
ability to live in polluted waters.
Tributary A body of water that drains into another, typically larger, body of water.
Turbidity Optical property of water that describes the amount of light that is refracted.
Primarily related to the amount of silt and clay, turbidity is also influenced by organic particles,
compounds and organisms.
Water quality criteria Maximum concentrations of pollutants that are acceptable, if those
waters are to meet water quality standards. Listed in state water quality standards.
Water quality standards Written goals for state waters, established by each state and approved
by EPA. Water quality standards have three parts: designated uses, water quality criteria and an
anti-degradation policy.
Watershed A region or area bounded by ridgelines or other physical divides and draining
ultimately to a particular watercourse or body of water.
50
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
XL Appendices
51
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
Appendix 1. List of map sites with associated stream
Map#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
Stream-id
OR790S
OR796S
OR798S
OR799S
OR813S
OR814S
OR818S
OR822S
OR823S
OR826S
OR831S
OR832S
OR835S
OR836S
OR838S
OR839S
OR840S
OR841S
OR846S
OR848S
OR850S
OR851S
OR852S
OR853S
OR854S
OR855S
OR856S
OR857S
OR858S
OR859S
OR862S
WA780S
WA788S
WA826S
WA828S
WA831S
WA832S
WA833S
WA835S
WA836S
WA837S
WA838S
WA840S
WA842S
WA843S
WA848S
WA850S
WA851S
WA853S
WA855S
WA856S
WA858S
Lat-dd
43.921
45.890
45.403
42.943
42.111
42.614
46.151
45.075
45.055
46.009
45.495
45.425
44.635
44.652
44.398
44.387
44.203
43.806
43.784
43.517
43.633
43.627
43.560
43.438
43.555
43.206
43.266
43.258
43.164
43.162
43.147
46.913
48.178
46.289
46.268
46.439
47.933
47.781
47.654
47.643
47.523
47.489
47.350
46.873
46.858
47.018
47.096
46.886
46.770
46.371
47.891
47.683
Long-dd
123.234
122.862
123.830
123.170
124.094
124.066
123.586
123.619
123.621
123.355
123.588
123.793
123.775
123.754
124.059
123.564
123.949
123.229
123.426
123.863
123.211
123.219
123.941
124.164
123.959
123.634
123.892
123.596
124.046
123.803
123.778
123.464
124.360
123.260
123.285
123.403
124.171
123.935
123.646
123.672
124.174
123.815
124.265
123.297
123.320
123.548
123.907
123.711
123.461
123.766
122.989
123.171
Map#
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
122
123
131
identification
Strum-id
WA860S
WA861S
WA863S
OR001S
OR003S
OR005S
OR007S
OR009S
OR011S
OR013S
OR017S
OR019S
OR021S
OR025S
OR027S
OR029S
OR031S
OR033S
OR035S
OR037S
OR039S
OR043S
OR045S
OR047S
OR049S
OR053S
OR055S
OR057S
OR059S
WA001S
WA002S
WA003S
WA004S
WA007S
WA009S
WA011S
WA014S
WA016S
WA017S
WA018S
WA019S
WA022S
WA023S
WA024S
WA025S
WA026S
WA027S
WA028S
WA029S
WA062S
WA065S
WA089S
number.
Lat-dd
48.176
48.169
46.747
45.992
44.139
45.296
45.092
45.413
45.998
45.808
45.465
45.302
45.015
44.469
44.455
44.214
43.963
43.981
43.936
43.043
43.934
43.502
43.574
43.333
43.116
42.749
42.719
42.575
42.191
46.267
48.145
48.130
48.030
47.971
47.834
47.358
46.987
47.282
47.266
47.105
47.104
46.710
46.708
46.572
46.611
46.384
46.355
47.452
47.440
46.656
46.651
47.530
Long-dd
124.174
124.210
123.615
122.896
123.439
123.377
123.696
123.193
123.277
123.734
123.436
123.546
123.722
123.959
123.964
124.011
123.971
123.430
123.510
123.539
123.814
123.318
124.024
124.071
124.215
124.278
124.275
124.259
124.091
123.850
124.580
124.537
124.534
124.586
124.013
123.967
123.198
123.484
123.476
123.363
123.357
123.475
123.432
123.858
123.487
123.636
123.730
123.432
123.440
123.264
123.845
124.049
52
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
Appendix 2. Summary statistics for 1 1 water chemistry indicators collected from coastal ecoregion sites
Indicator
Units
, 1994-1995.
n Weighted Mean -95% +95% Median Minimum Maximum Range
stream km
Alkalinity
Chloride (CO
Conductivity
Dissolved oxygen
(DO)
Dissolved organic
carbon (DOC)
Ammonium
(NH4+)
Nitrate (NQO
pH
Total phosphorous
Sulfate (SO42-)
Temperature
|oeq/L
|oeq/L
uS/cm
mg/L
mg/L
|oeq/L
|oeq/L
-
log[H]
ug/L
|oeq/L
Celsius
98
84
103
102
71
103
103
102
101
85
102
22571
20097
23163
22773
16149
23163
23163
22843
22790
20181
22773
Variance Std.Dev. Std.
confid. confid.
564.645
165.393
90.0
8.74
2.8
6.638
11.072
7.1
65.8
85.147
12.9
560.674
162.069
89.4
8.71
2.7
6.337
10.889
7.1
64.2
84.124
12.9
568.617
168.717
90.7
8.77
2.8
6.939
11.256
7.1
67.3
86.170
13.0
479.568
115.645
74.0
9.60
1.6
1.428
5.069
7.1
20.0
66.624
12.5
79.528
0.846
29.0
1.10
0.5
0.714
0.714
5.5
5.0
5.205
7.3
1678.488
2820.600
493.0
12.15
13.0
128.507
78.532
8.1
580.0
472.614
25.3
1598.960
2819.754
464.0
11.05
12.5
127.793
77.818
2.6
575.0
467.409
18.0
92667.780
57813.475
2566.629
5.907
9.416
545.925
202.679
0.212
14078.098
5497.438
4.603
Error
304.414
240.444
50.662
2.431
3.069
23.365
14.237
0.460
118.651
74.145
2.145
2.026
1.696
0.333
0.016
0.024
0.154
0.094
0.003
0.786
0.522
0.014
53
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
Appendix 3. Summary statistics for physical habitat metrics based on samples
CASENAME Indicator
XSLOPE
XDEPTH
XWIDTH
XWD_RAT
AREA HA
SINU
PCT SAFN
PCT_SFGF
PCT BIGR
PCT BDRK
PCT_ORG
V1W MSQ
V4W_MSQ
PCT FA
PCT_DRS
PCT FAST
PCT SLOW
PCT_F_NO
PCT POOL
RPA100R
RPD75
XAR
MAXDEP
XBKF W
XINC_H
XCL
XFC_ALL
XFC BIG
XFC_NAT
Mean Slope
Mean thalweg Depth
Mean wetted Width
Mean width/depth
Watershed area
Sinuosity
Sand/fine substrate
Fine gravel/smaller
Coarse gravel/larger
Bedrock
Organic matter
A11LWD
Lg./xlarge LWD
Falls
Dry/subsurface
Fast water
Glides/pools
Fast w/o falls
All pool types
Residual mean dpth
Res. Depth >75cm
Mean stream area
Max. thalweg depth
Mean bankfull width
Mean incision height
Riparian canopy >.3m
DBH
All fish cover types
Structural fish cover
Natural fish cover
Units
%
cm
m
m/m
Hectares
m/m
%
%
%
%
%
m2/m3
m2/m3
%
%
%
%
%
%
cm
#/reach
m2
cm
m
m
cover
Sum areal
prop.
Areal prop.
Areal prop.
N
23228
23228
23228
23228
23228
23228
23228
23228
23228
23228
23228
23228
23228
23228
23228
23228
23228
23228
23228
23228
21250
23228
23228
23228
23228
23228
23228
23228
23228
collected
from coastal ecoregion sites, 1994-1995.
MEAN CONFID. CONFID. MEDIAN
3.76
25.27
4.02
23.61
1497.52
1.97
42.08
54.18
32.24
1.68
5.26
0.68
0.22
0.38
7.15
37.01
55.75
36.63
29.02
11.89
0.63
2.55
66.54
6.88
1.23
0.23
0.63
0.31
0.62
3.72
24.99
3.97
23.44
1458.69
1.91
41.69
53.83
31.87
1.61
5.17
0.66
0.21
0.37
6.89
36.68
55.42
36.30
28.77
11.73
0.61
2.49
65.84
6.80
1.22
0.23
0.63
0.31
0.62
3.81
25.56
4.07
23.77
1536.35
2.02
42.46
54.54
32.62
1.76
5.35
0.71
0.22
0.40
7.40
37.35
56.08
36.96
29.28
12.05
0.64
2.62
67.25
6.96
1.25
0.23
0.64
0.32
0.62
2.39
20.87
2.25
20.87
197.05
1.27
36.36
56.36
25.45
0.00
1.92
0.19
0.07
0.00
0.00
34.67
56.00
34.67
23.00
8.23
0.00
0.59
58.95
5.20
0.99
0.21
0.56
0.28
0.55
MEV
0.00
0.67
0.12
6.04
9.24
0.00
0.00
3.85
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.67
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.84
0.08
0.00
0.13
0.04
0.13
MAX
22.35
139.81
23.26
104.14
15957.23
72.39
100.00
100.00
94.23
69.09
30.00
9.33
2.66
5.33
87.33
84.56
100.00
82.55
96.64
74.12
6.00
32.94
376.93
48.10
5.32
0.67
1.48
0.82
1.48
VARIANCE STD_DEV
11.787
490.342
16.457
169.040
9117486.317
17.833
888.054
753.963
832.948
35.129
47.780
3.203
0.175
0.964
398.464
676.418
663.352
657.109
394.860
153.448
1.034
26.014
3014.644
37.143
0.912
0.027
0.098
0.041
0.098
3.433
22.144
4.057
13.002
3019.518
4.223
29.800
27.458
28.861
5.927
6.912
1.790
0.418
0.982
19.962
26.008
25.756
25.634
19.871
12.387
1.017
5.100
54.906
6.095
0.955
0.164
0.313
0.204
0.313
S.E.
0.023
0.145
0.027
0.085
19.812
0.028
0.196
0.180
0.189
0.039
0.045
0.012
0.003
0.006
0.131
0.171
0.169
0.168
0.130
0.081
0.007
0.033
0.360
0.040
0.006
0.001
0.002
0.001
0.002
54
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
Appendix 3 continued. Summary statistics for physical habitat metrics based on samples collected from coastal ecoregion sites,
1994-1995.
CASENAME
XGB
XC
XG
XCMW
XCMGW
XPCM
XPCMG
PCAN_C
XPCAN
XPMID
PCAN_D
PCAN_M
XCDENBK
XCDENMID
W1_HALL
W1_HAG
W1H LOG
W1H_ROAD
W1H BLDG
W1H PVMT
W1_HNOAG
LSUB_DMM
all wood
v. small w.
small w.
med. W.
large w.
v. large w.
Indicator
Riparian bare ground
Riparian canopy
Riparian ground layer
Canopy and mid woody
Riparian woody cover
Riparian canopy and
midlayer
3 layer riparian veg.
Riparian canopy-
coniferous
Riparian canopy-all
Riparian mid layer veg.
Riparian canopy-
deciduous
Riparian canopy -mixed
Canopy density-bank
Canopy density mid
channel
All riparian disturb.
Agric. Riparian dist.
Logging riparian dist.
Road riparian dist.
Building riparian dist.
Pavement riparian dist.
Non-ag. Riparian dist.
Substrate diameter
A11LWD
Very small LWD
Small LWD
Medium LWD
Large LWD
Very large LWD
Units
cover
cover
cover
cover
cover
Prop. Reach
Prop. Reach
Prop. Reach
Prop. Reach
Prop. Reach
Prop. Reach
Prop. Reach
%
%
Prox. Wt. Pres.
Prox. Wt. Pres.
Prox. Wt. Pres.
Prox. Wt. Pres.
Prox. Wt. Pres.
Prox. Wt. Pres.
Prox. Wt. Pres.
Geo. Mean dia.
Ave. #/100m
Ave. #/100m
Ave. #/100m
Ave. #/100m
Ave. #/100m
Ave. #/100m
N MEAN CONFID. CONFID. MEDIAN MEV MAX VARIANCE STD_DEV S. E.
23228
23228
23228
23228
23228
23228
23228
23228
23228
23228
23228
23228
22434
23228
23228
23228
23228
23228
23228
23228
23228
23228
21933
21933
21933
21933
21933
21933
0.18
0.41
0.65
0.74
0.92
0.86
0.86
0.10
0.87
0.98
0.41
0.35
89.38
79.20
1.34
0.20
0.56
0.35
0.08
0.07
1.14
0.24
43.42
20.27
11.20
6.13
5.09
0.72
0.18
0.40
0.65
0.73
0.91
0.86
0.85
0.10
0.86
0.98
0.41
0.35
89.21
78.92
1.32
0.19
0.56
0.34
0.07
0.07
1.13
0.22
42.81
19.85
11.08
6.06
5.00
0.70
0.18
0.41
0.65
0.74
0.93
0.86
0.86
0.10
0.87
0.98
0.42
0.36
89.55
79.48
1.36
0.21
0.57
0.35
0.08
0.07
1.15
0.26
44.02
20.69
11.32
6.21
5.18
0.73
0.14
0.33
0.61
0.79
0.96
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.42
0.33
93.85
88.64
1.28
0.00
0.67
0.33
0.00
0.00
1.25
0.70
26.67
7.33
8.67
4.00
2.67
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.13
0.01
0.02
0.08
0.08
0.00
0.08
0.58
0.00
0.00
28.88
13.37
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-2.45
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.73
0.89
1.09
1.51
1.81
1.00
1.00
0.92
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
100.00
100.00
5.08
2.11
1.50
1.00
0.69
0.83
4.03
3.18
213.33
153.33
35.72
22.64
39.37
4.37
0.023
0.061
0.042
0.145
0.194
0.046
0.047
0.037
0.044
0.002
0.114
0.091
172.521
464.045
1.433
0.215
0.209
0.105
0.035
0.035
0.818
2.052
2073.19
1005.37
82.04
30.86
43.31
1.12
0.151
0.246
0.204
0.381
0.440
0.214
0.217
0.193
0.211
0.046
0.338
0.302
13.135
21.542
1.197
0.463
0.457
0.324
0.186
0.188
0.904
1. 432
45.53
31.71
9.06
5.56
6.58
1.06
0.001
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.002
0.002
0.088
0.141
0.008
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.006
0.009
0.31
0.21
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.01
55
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
Appendix 4. List of fish and amphibian species identified during 1994-1995 field sampling of Coast Range
ecoregion REMAP sites. Extent of distribution indicated by percent of the total stream km represented by the
sample.
Family
Fishes
Catostomidae
Centrarchidae
Centrarchidae
Cottidae
Cottidae
Cottidae
Cottidae
Cottidae
Cottidae
Cottidae
Cyprinidae
Cyprinidae
Cyprinidae
Cyprinidae
Gasterosteidae
Percopsidae
Petromyzontidae
Petromyzontidae
Petromyzontidae
Salmonidae
Salmonidae
Salmonidae
Salmonidae
Salmonidae
Salmonidae
Umbridae
Amphibians
Ambystomatidae
Bufonidae
Dicamptodontidae
Dicamptodontidae
Hylidae
Leiopelmatidae
Ranidae
Ranidae
Ranidae
Rhyacotritonidae
Rhyacotritonidae
Salamandridae
Genus
Catostomus
Lepomis
Lepomis
Cottus
Cottus
Cottus
Cottus
Cottus
Cottus
Rhinichthys
Richardsonius
Ptychocheilus
Rhinichthys
Gasterosteus
Percopsis
Lampetra
Lampetra
Oncorhynchus
Oncorhynchus
Oncorhynchus
Salvelinus
Salvelinus
Oncorhynchus
Novumbra
Ambystoma
Bufo
Dicamptodon
Dicamptodon
Pseudacris
Ascaphus
Rana
Rana
Rana
Rhyacotriton
Rhyacotriton
Taricha
Species
macrocheilus
macrochirus
gibbosus
perplexus
gulosus
rhotheus
asper
aleuticus
confusus
osculus
balteatus
oregonensis
cataractae
aculeatus
transmontana
tridentata
richardsoni
clarki
kisutch
my kiss
fontinalis
confluentus
tshawytscha
hubbsi
gracile
boreas
tenebrosus
copei
regilla
truei
aurora
boy Hi
catesbiana
olympicus
kezeri
granulosa
Common name
LARGESCALE SUCKER
BLUEGILL
PUMPKINSEED
RETICULATE SCULPIN
RIFFLE SCULPIN
TORRENT SCULPIN
PRICKLY SCULPIN
COASTRANGE SCULPIN
SHORTHEAD SCULPIN
unidentified cottid
SPECKLED DACE
REDSIDE SHINER
NORTHERN PIKEMINNOW
LONGNOSE DACE
THREESPINE STICKLEBACK
SAND ROLLER
PACIFIC LAMPREY
WESTERN BROOK LAMPREY
Unidentified lamprey
CUTTHROAT TROUT
COHO SALMON
RAINBOW TROUT
BROOK TROUT
BULL TROUT
CHINOOK SALMON
OLYMPIC MUDMINNOW
NORTHWESTERN SALAMANDER
WESTERN TOAD
PACIFIC GIANT SALAMANDER
COPE'S GIANT SALAMANDER
PACIFIC TREE FROG
TAILED FROG
RED-LEGGED FROG
FOOTHILL YELLOW-LEGGED
FROG
BULLFROG
OLYMPIC TORRENT
SALAMANDER
COLUMBIA TORRENT
SALAMANDER
ROUGH-SKINNED NEWT
no vertebrates captured
% stream
km
5.4
0.9
0.9
40.6
16.6
9.3
7.8
6.3
3.9
1.4
7.8
7.6
2.6
1.1
5.7
0.3
23.7
3.7
5.1
55.6
30.8
28.8
2.5
1.6
1.1
1.7
0.3
1.7
30.2
12.3
1.1
15.6
19.1
1.1
0.3
3.1
1.4
20.7
5.1
sites
6
1
1
48
20
24
12
12
5
1
17
12
3
4
9
1
45
6
3
60
47
54
4
2
4
2
1
1
24
8
2
16
18
2
1
2
1
17
2
total wt
1232.4
198.4
198.4
9338.1
3814.3
2149.9
1795.6
1442.5
909.0
320.5
1797.6
1744.5
587.3
260.0
1317.3
65.0
5463.2
854.3
1170.1
12788.9
7087.9
6629.5
585.0
373.9
260.0
400.6
80.1
390.0
6959.2
2842.0
243.7
3592.4
4401.4
264.6
65.0
710.5
320.5
4755.1
1183.7
56
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
Appendix 5. Species characteristics classification for freshwater fish species identified at Coast Range ecoregion REMAP sites. Results from
all sampling included (includes repeat visit results, 1994-1996 data). Classification based on Zaroban et al. (1999).
Family/Species
Catostomidae
Catostomus macrocheilus
Centrarchidae
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis gibbosus
Cottidae
Cottus aleuticus
Cottus asper
Cottus perplexus
Cottus gulosus
Cottus confusus
Cottus rhotheus
Cyprinidae
Ptychocheilus oregonensis
Rhinichthys cataractae
Rhinichthys osculus
Richardsonius balteatus
Gasterosteidae
Gasterosteus aculeatus
Common Name
largescale sucker
bluegill
pumpkinseed
coastrange sculpin
prickly sculpin
reticulate sculpin
riffle sculpin
shorthead sculpin
torrent sculpin
northern pikeminnow
longnose dace
speckled dace
redside shiner
threespine stickleback
Origin1
OR, WA
Non- native
Non- native
OR,WA
OR, WA
OR, WA
OR,WA
OR,WA
OR, WA
OR,WA
OR, WA
OR, WA
OR,WA
OR, WA
Tolerance
tolerant
tolerant
tolerant
intermediate
intermediate
intermediate
intermediate
sensitive
intermediate
tolerant
intermediate
intermediate
intermediate
tolerant
Habitat
benthic
water column
water column
benthic
benthic
benthic
benthic
benthic
benthic
water column
benthic
benthic
water column
hider
Temperature
cool
warm
cool
cool
cool
cool
cool
cold
cold
cool
cool
cool
cool
cool
Feeding
omnivore
invert/pi scivore
invert/pi scivore
invertivore
invert/pi scivore
invertivore
invertivore
invertivore
invert/pi scivore
invert/pi scivore
invertivore
invertivore
invertivore
invertivore
OR = native to Oregon, WA = native to Washington (does not imply occurrence in both states).
57
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
Appendix 5 continued. Species characteristics classification for freshwater fish species identified during 1994-1995 field sampling of Coast
Range ecoregion REMAP sites. Results from all sampling included (includes repeat visit results, 1994-1996 data).Classification based on
Zarobanetal. (1999).
Family/Species
Percopsidae
Percopsis transmontana
Petromyzontidae
Lampetra tridentata
Lampetra richardsoni
Salmonidae
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Oncorhynchus clarki
Oncorhynchus my kiss
Salvelinus fontinalis
Salvelinus confluentus
Umbridae
Novumbra hubbsi
Common name Origin Tolerance Habitat
sand roller OR, WA intermediate hider
Pacific lamprey OR, WA intermediate hider
western brook lamprey OR, WA intermediate hider
chinook salmon
coho salmon
cutthroat trout
rainbow trout
brook trout
bull trout
Olympic mudminnow WA tolerant hider
Temperature Feeding
cool
cool
cool
OR,WA
OR,WA
OR,WA
OR,WA
Non-native
OR,WA
sensitive
sensitive
sensitive
sensitive
sensitive
sensitive
water column
water column
water column
hider
hider
hider
cold
cold
cold
cold
cold
cold
warm
invertivore
filter feeder
filter feeder
invertivore
invertivore
invert/piscivore
invert/piscivore
invert/piscivore
invert/piscivore
invertivore
Non-native = non-native, exotic, or introduced species. OR = native to Oregon, WA = native to Washington (does not imply occurarence in both states).
58
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
Appendix 6. Species characteristics classification for amphibian species identified during 1994-1995 field sampling of Coast Range
ecoregion REMAP sites. Results from all sampling included (includes repeat visit results, 1994-1996 data). Classification based Stebbins 1954
and Bob Hughes personal conversations with Deanna Olsen, Robert Storm, Andrew Blaustein, and Bruce Bury.
Common name
Ambystomatidae
northwestern salamander
Leiopelmatidae
tailed frog
Bufonidae
western toad
Dicamptodontidae
Cope's giant salamander
Pacific giant salamander
Hylidae
Pacific tree frog
Ranidae
red-legged frog
foothill yellow-legged frog
bullfrog
Salamandridae
rough-skinned newt
Rhyacotritonidae
*Columbia torrent salamander
*Olympic torrent salamander
*based on interpretation c
Genus Species
Ambystoma gracile
Ascaphus truei
Bufo boreas
Dicamptodon copei
Dicamptodon tenebrosus
Pseudacris regilla
Rana aurora
Rana boylii
Rana catesbiana
Taricha granulosa
Rhyacotriton kezeri
Rhyacotriton olympicus
if amphibian descriptions in
Origin
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
non-native
native
native
native
Leonard et al.
tolerance
tolerant
sensitive
sensitive
intolerant
intolerant
tolerant
intolerant
intolerant
tolerant
tolerant
intolerant
intolerant
1993.
habitat
lentic
benthic/hider
lentic
hider
benthic/hider
lentic
edge
benthic/hider
lentic
edge
benthic/hider
benthic/hider
temperature Feeding
none
cold
none
cold
cold
none
none
cool
warm
none
cold
cold
invert/carnivore
invert/carnivore
invert/carnivore
invert/carnivore
invert/carnivore
invert/carnivore
invert/carnivore
invert/carnivore
invert/carnivore
invert/carnivore
invert/carnivore
invert/carnivore
59
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
Appendix 7. Summary statistics for vertebrate metrics based on samples
collected from coastal ecoregion sites, 1994-1995.
Metric Stream km Mean Confid. Confid. Median Min. Max. Range Var. Std. Dev. S.E.
# benthic species
% benthic individuals
% benthic species
# water column species
% water column individuals
% water column species
# hider species
% hider individuals
% hider species
# warmwater species
% warmwater individuals
% warmwater species
# cool water species
% cool water individuals
% cool water species
# cold water species
% cold water individuals
% cold water species
# filter feeder species
% filter feeder individuals
% filter feeder species
# herbivore species
% herbivore individuals
% herbivore species
# omnivore species
% omnivore individuals
% omnivore species
# invertivore species
% invertivore individuals
% invertivore species
# invertivore/piscivore species
% invertivore/piscivore individuals
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
1.41
39.95
33.50
0.45
10.62
9.92
1.93
44.28
51.43
0.09
1.00
1.59
1.76
37.76
40.95
1.92
56.09
52.32
0.33
1.72
6.00
0.16
3.30
4.46
0.05
1.21
1.97
1.91
50.99
44 .41
1.34
37.59
1.40
39.51
33.21
0.45
10.37
9.73
1.91
43.82
51.10
0.08
0.93
1.51
1.74
37.31
40.57
1.90
55.62
51.92
0.32
1.67
5.88
0.15
3.11
4.31
0.05
1.13
1.85
1.89
50.52
44.06
1.33
37.13
1.43
40.38
33.78
0.46
10.88
10.11
1.94
44.75
51.77
0.09
1.06
1.67
1.78
38.21
41.33
1.94
56.57
52.71
0.33
1.78
6.12
0.16
3.49
4.60
0.06
1.29
2.09
1.93
51.46
44.76
1.35
38.06
1.00
35.63
33.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
37.61
50.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
33.33
40.00
2.00
61.95
50.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
62.39
50.00
1.00
27.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.00
100.00
100.00
3.00
82.50
50.00
5.00
100.00
100.00
2.00
30.68
50.00
7.00
100.00
100.00
5.00
100.00
100.00
2.00
44.50
33.33
1.00
96.49
50.00
1.00
33.33
50.00
7.00
100.00
100.00
4.00
100.00
6.00
100.00
100.00
3.00
82.50
50.00
5.00
100.00
100.00
2.00
30.68
50.00
7.00
100.00
100.00
5.00
100.00
100.00
2.00
44.50
33.33
1.00
96.49
50.00
1.00
33.33
50.00
7.00
100.00
100.00
4.00
100.00
1.19
1125.53
479.47
0.45
396.86
221.11
1.34
1280.68
659.13
0.11
24.76
40.60
2.55
1214.68
860.65
1.68
1342.06
951.45
0.23
18.18
88.44
0.13
213.23
129.80
0.05
37.21
85.87
2.53
1317.10
728.74
0.78
1291.90
1.09
33.55
21.90
0.67
19.92
14.87
1.16
35.79
25.67
0.33
4.98
6.37
1.60
34.85
29.34
1.29
36.63
30.85
0.47
4.26
9.40
0.36
14.60
11.39
0.23
6.10
9.27
1.59
36.29
27.00
0.88
35.94
0.01
0.22
0.14
0.00
0.13
0.10
0.01
0.24
0.17
0.00
0.03
0.04
0.01
0.23
0.19
0.01
0.24
0.20
0.00
0.03
0.06
0.00
0.10
0.08
0.00
0.04
0.06
0.01
0.24
0.18
0.01
0.24
60
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
Appendix 7 continued. Summary statistics for vertebrate metrics based on samples collected from coastal ecoregion sites, 1994-1995.
Metric Stream km Mean Confid. Confid. Median Min. Max. Range Var. Std. Dev. S.E.
% invertivore/piscivore species
# piscivore species
% piscivore indivduals
% piscivore species
# tolerant species
% tolerant individuals
% tolerant species
# sensitive species
% sensitive individuals
% sensitive species
# intermediate species
% intermediate individuals
% intermediate species
# alien species
% alien individuals
% alien species
# fish families
# native fish species
# native fish families
# native amphibian species
# native amphibian families
# native vertebrate species
# native vertebrate families
# native anadromous species
# vertebrate individuals
# vertebrate species
# fish species
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
23003
37.47
0.02
0.04
0.54
0.39
6.73
10.90
1.78
45.72
43.02
1.55
42.40
40.94
0.05
0.27
1.10
1.94
2.68
1.92
1.07
1.07
3.75
2.99
0.84
107.64
3.80
2.73
37.12
0.01
0.03
0.49
0.39
6.48
10.65
1.77
45.26
42.66
1.54
41.94
40.57
0.04
0.25
.03
.92
2.65
.90
.05
.05
3.72
2.97
0.83
106.03
3.77
2.70
37.83
0.02
0.04
0.59
0.40
6.97
11.15
1.80
46.18
43.37
1.57
42.86
41.30
0.05
0.29
1.18
1.96
2.71
1.94
1.08
1.08
3.78
3.01
0.86
109.24
3.83
2.76
33.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
50.00
50.00
1.00
40.00
33.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
0.00
40.00
3.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
1.00
2.63
33.33
4.00
100.00
100.00
6.00
100.00
100.00
6.00
100.00
100.00
1.00
16.67
50.00
6.00
10.00
6.00
4.00
4.00
11.00
7.00
4.00
555.00
11.00
10.00
100.00
1.00
2.63
33.33
4.00
100.00
100.00
6.00
100.00
100.00
6.00
100.00
100.00
1.00
16.67
50.00
6.00
10.00
6.00
4.00
4.00
11.00
7.00
4.00
555.00
11.00
10.00
760.69
0.02
0.10
17.72
0.41
360.00
375.69
1.75
1247.83
751.27
1.57
1268.38
785.59
0.04
3.07
34.11
1.97
5.25
1.92
0.95
0.95
5.35
2.47
1.17
15424.47
5.46
5.42
27.58
0.13
0.31
4.21
0.64
18.97
19.38
1.32
35.32
27.41
1.25
35.61
28.03
0.21
1.75
5.84
1.40
2.29
1.38
0.97
0.97
2.31
1.57
1.08
124.20
2.34
2.33
0.18
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.13
0.13
0.01
0.23
0.18
0.01
0.23
0.18
0.00
0.01
0.04
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.82
0.02
0.02
61
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
Appendix 8. Summary statistics for seven macroinvertebrate indicators based on samples collected from riffles of 93 coastal ecoregion sites,
1994-1995.
METRIC
Taxa richness
EPT taxa richness
Intolerant taxa
richness
% Chironomid
% EPT
% scrapers
% shredders
Stream km
20122
20122
20122
20122
20122
20122
20122
MEAN
38.3
19.4
8.0
29.9
45.3
15.4
14.2
CONFID.
38.18
19.32
7.87
29.64
45.02
15.20
14.09
CONFID.
38.51
19.55
8.04
30.18
45.66
15.61
14.40
MEDIAN
38.0
17.0
7.0
29.3
42.8
10.5
12.7
MIN.
5.0
1.0
0.0
0.3
1.5
0.2
0.0
MAX.
60.0
37.0
22.0
86.8
97.5
95.6
82.4
RANGE
55.0
36.0
22.0
86.5
96.0
95.4
82.4
VARIANCE
143.78
70.97
36.15
391.22
538.20
227.45
126.14
STD.DEV.
11.99
8.42
6.01
19.78
23.20
15.08
11.23
S.E.
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.14
0.16
0.11
0.08
SKEWNESS
0.00
0.12
0.71
0.48
0.27
1.82
1.12
KURTOSIS
-0.59
-0.68
-0.45
-0.66
-0.84
4.14
3.02
62
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
Appendix 9. R values of significant correlations (P<0.05) between ecological indicators and
stressor indicators. Data were not weighted. Riparian vegetation = canopy and mid level
vegetation, shade = mid stream shade, and LWD =med and large sized (>10cm).
Water chemistry indicators and physical habitat stressor indicators:
Alkalinity
Cl
DO
NH4+
N03
PH
SO/
Temp.
TP
Riparian
veg.
+.334
+.258
Shade
-.294
% sand
and
fines
-.543
+.266
-.283
-.229
+.326
LWD
-.258
%
pools
-.343
-.268
-.368
Max.
pool
depth
-.225
-.273
Width/
depth
ratio
+.302
+.248
Mean
depth
+.278
Water chemistry indicators and riparian disturbance:
Alkalinity
Cl
DO
NH4+
NO3
pH
SO/
Temperature
TP
All
disturbance
-.320
+.304
+.306
Logging
-.362
-.288
Roads
-.231
+.270
+.376
Agricultural
+.311
+.408
-.509
+.541
+.407
Physical habitat indicators and riparian disturbance:
Riparian veg.
Shade
Fish cover
% sand and fines
LWD
% pools
Max. pool depth
All
disturbance
-.237
+.469
Logging
+.289
+.200
+.238
-.211
Roads
+.391
+.208
Agricultural
-.391
+.406
63
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
Appendix 9 continued. R values of significant correlations (P<0.05) between ecological
indicators and stressor indicators. Data were not weighted. Riparian vegetation = canopy and
mid level vegetation, shade = mid stream shade, and LWD =med and large sized (>10cm).
Vertebrate indicators and water chemistry indicators:
# native fish families
# native fish species
# fish species
# hider species
# vertebrate species
# sensitive species
# water column species
# omnivorous individ.
Percent alien individ.
Alk
+.338
cr
+.323
+.256
DO
-.424
NH4+
+.954
PH
+.266
TP
SO/
-.231
-.229
Temp
+.413
+.355
+.347
+.227
+.352
+.462
Vertebrate indicators and physical habitat:
# native fish families
# native fish species
# fish species
# hider species
# vertebrate species
# sensitive species
# water column species
# omnivorous individ.
Percent alien individ.
Riparian
veg.
Shade
-.268
-.271
-.272
-.215
-.275
% sand
and
fines
-.336
+.204
LWD
-.236
-.262
-.258
-.240
%
pools
-.204
-.199
-.198
-.202
-.205
Max.
pool
depth
+.220
+.220
+.224
+.286
+.240
+.254
Cover
-.247
-.303
-.292
-.258
-.361
Vertebrate indicators and riparian disturbance:
# native fish families
# native fish species
# fish species
# hider species
# vertebrate species
# sensitive species
# water column species
# omnivorous individ.
Percent alien individ.
All
disturbance
+.302
+.233
+.247
+.305
+.286
Logging
Roads
+.222
+.272
+.256
Agricultural
+.391
+.295
+.299
+.245
+.410
+.453
64
-------
Coast Range Ecoregion REMAP Report
Appendix 9 continued. R values of significant correlations (P<0.05) between ecological
indicators and stressor indicators. Data were not weighted. Riparian vegetation = canopy and
mid level vegetation, shade = mid stream shade, and LWD =med and large sized (>10cm).
Benthic invertebrate indicators and water chemistry:
Taxa richness
EPT taxa
Intolerant taxa
Alk
+.238
Cl
DO
+.476
+.607
+.332
NH4
PH
+.458
+.264
TP
SO/
+.347
Temp
-.514
Bethic invertebrate indicators and physical habitat:
Taxa richness
EPT taxa
Intolerant taxa
Ripari
an veg.
+.273
-.247
Shade
(mid
stream)
+.211
% sand
and
fines
-.383
-.624
-.420
LWD
%
pools
Max.
pool
depth
Cover
Benthic invertebrate indicators and riparian disturbance:
Total taxa
EPT taxa
Intolerant taxa
All
disturbance
-.362
-.373
Logging
Roads
-.330
-.444
Agricultural
-.407
-.421
65
------- |